Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Manchester (Police, etc.) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

London County Council (Money) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Earby Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCE.

Mr. A. SHORT: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that
Sapper James Micklin, No. 12,105, Royal Engineers, has since May, 1918, been under treatment for tuberculosis at the Moxley sanatorium, Wednesbury; that he has been in receipt of full allowance until 8th June last; that he has now been informed by the regional director that a final allowance of £1 per week will be made for a further six weeks only; and that he is so ill as to be unable to work; and will he have a thorough investigation made into this case?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I regret that in the short time available I have not been able to obtain the full facts of this case from the Birmingham regional office, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that H. Ballard, of 37, Lydford Road, Paddington, late of the Royal Garrison Artillery, lost a leg above the knee during the War; that Ballard, who is still unable to take employment, is in receipt of 24s. a week, upon which he is entirely dependent for his livelihood; and that, although this man has been medically certified as unfit to work for the present, his treatment allowance has just been stopped; and if he will inquire into this case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: This man re-received treatment and allowances for the eight weeks ending 23rd June, when it was medically certified that no further treatment was necessary, and payment of pension at the scheduled rate appropriate to his disablement was accordingly resumed. Treatment allowances can only be paid under the Warrant while treatment continues and while the man is, in consequence of the treatment, unable to work.

Sir F. HALL: To what amount would this poor man have been entitled if, instead of going to the War, he had stayed at home, and earned the wages that were applicable in his case? What unemployment benefit would he have had?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I have stated the full amount.

Sir F. HALL: He would have done a great deal better by staying at home.

APPEAL TRIBUNALS, LONDON.

Sir F. HALL: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether any, and, if so, how many additional appeal tribunals have been set up in the London region since the 28th February last; what is now the average number of appeals being heard each week; and what is the usual period which at present elapses between the date on which an appeal is received by the tribunal and the date on which it is listed for hearing?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. There are at present eight Pension Appeal Tribunals sitting in London, dealing with approximately 400 cases each week. The average period elapsing between the date a London area appeal is received by the tribunal and the date on which it is listed for hearing is about seven weeks. The number of waiting appeals in this area have been considerably reduced since March last.

Sir F. HALL: Cannot steps be taken to set up additional tribunals, in order that this work can be expedited?

Major BARNSTON: I will communicate that suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Sir F. HALL: That is practically the purport of the question. In order that there may be some improvement, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that that is done?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND OFFICES.

IRISH OFFICE.

Mr. LUNN: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many officials in his Department at present receive a salary, including war bonus, of £1,000 or over, and how many received a salary of £1,000 or over in June, 1914.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The number of officials in the Chief Secretary's Office (which includes the Belfast Branch and the Irish Office in London) who are paid from the Vote for that Department and are in receipt of salaries in excess of £1,000 per annum apart from war bonus is two, in addition
there are six officials whose salaries, together with war bonus at the current rate, exceed £1,000 per annum, or who are paid inclusive salaries in excess of that amount. The corresponding number in June, 1914, was two.

CIVIL SERVICE (COST).

Colonel NEWMAN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public demand for a reduction in the cost of the Civil Service, he will follow the precedent of one at least of the State Governments of Australia and cause to be set up an impartial Committee which, dealing with the higher salaried officials of each Government Department, will examine each official and decide whether his experience and capability is adequate and, where adequate, necessary to the efficient working of the Department, and the decision of the Committee in each case to be final and not subject to the concurrence of the Minister in charge of the Department?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): My hon. and gallant Friend's proposal runs counter to the whole principle of the responsibility of Ministers to this House for the efficient and economical administration of the Departments under their control; and I fear, therefore, that I cannot agree to his suggestion.

Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman get into communication with the: representative of New South Wales in this country and ask him how the Government of New South Wales Government dealt with their officials?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid New South Wales could not possibly teach us how a committee can discover the adequacy of an official for a particular post as well as the Minister in charge of the Department.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in New South Wales, a committee did it successfully?

BOYS' WAGES.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as stated in the Press, boys of 17 years of age in the Civil Service receive salaries and bonus equal to £212 per annum, and that boys of 15 years of age in the Ministry of Health receive 35s. a week?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Boys of 17 years of age if employed in the clerical class would at the present rates of bonus, receive, in London, total remuneration at the rate of£159 a year, which will be reduced to £135 a year from the 1st September next on the revision of bonus. Few, if any, boys of this age are at present employed in this class. The total remuneration of boys of 17 in other classes of employment is considerably less and varies with the grade down to about 31s. 6d., which figure will likewise be reduced by the revision of bonus. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Islington, on the 14th June.

Commander BELLAIRS: How can the hon. Gentleman tell the exact amount on 1st September next, seeing that an average is taken on the first of each month?

Mr. YOUNG: Of course it must be an estimate.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Mr. HOGGE: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the officials in his Department, who have had business experience in the export and import trades and who have studied trade conditions overseas, in the Dominions, and foreign countries, are members of the permanent Civil Service or ex-service men who have been brought in; if so, in what proportion; and whether in any contemplated reductions of staff the claims of ex-service men who have such knowledge will be specially considered?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Of the 48 market and trade officers, who have had business experience of import and export trade, 11 were members of the permanent Civil Service before their appointment to this grade, 12 were appointed to permanent posts from outside the Service, whilst 25 are temporary officers. Of this total of 48 officers, 30 have had service in the Army or Navy. As regards the market and trade officers and directing staff who have studied trade conditions overseas, 19 were employed as permanent Civil servants before their transfer to the Department, 10 now permanently
employed had not been in the Civil Service before their appointment to the Department, whilst 33 are temporary officers. Of this total of 62 officers, 37 have had service in the Army and Navy. The hon. Member may rest assured that, in making reductions of staff, the fullest consideration will be given to those who have served in His Majesty's forces.

POST OFFICE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the approximate number of his headquarters and local staff who are entitled to an annual holiday of four weeks' duration, and the number who are entitled to an annual holiday exceeding 28 working days, exclusive of Bank holidays and other public holidays?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): Approximately, 3,400 are entitled to 24 working days annual leave and 1,500 to annual leave in excess of 28 working days, in all cases exclusive of Bank and other public holidays.

Colonel NEWMAN: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give the present salary, with or without war bonus, now drawn by a sorter, a postman who delivers and collects letters, a telephone exchange clerk, and a telegraphist in the London area, and the salary that was drawn by an official employed on the same kind and grade of work in August, 1914, or other convenient pre-War date?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As the particulars are in tabular form perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

POLICE SEARCH, BALLYMENA.

Mr. DEVLIN: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the raid in Ballymena carried out by the Ulster special constables on Friday, 17th June; whether the houses of a number of Catholics in the town were raided, the system being to place in each house at about 4 o'clock a.m. two or three special constables who, in most cases, separated the men and women into different rooms and kept them there until an officer arrived to carry out a search, which meant
that in many cases people were kept in this position from 4 o'clock until 9 or 10 o'clock; whether in most cases the special constables adopted a very aggressive and provocative attitude; whether in the case of one leading merchant the officer in charge took the keys from the assistant manager at his residence and, accompanied by two special constables, entered the business premises, which contained valuable goods and securities, and remained there for an half hour without informing the owner that any raid was intended, and unaccompanied by any representative of the owner; whether in the case of a hotel in the town special constables who were not under the control of an officer burst in the door, went through the hotel holding up everyone at the point of the revolver, and entered the room of an old lady about 80 years of age, a confirmed invalid, and ordered her to get out of bed; whether he can state who was responsible for this raid and for what purpose it was carried out; why was the raid directed against Catholics alone, as was evident from the questions asked some of the residents; whether the instructions issued by the Government are that the district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary, as executive officer for the district, should be consulted prior to such raids; whether the district inspector in Ballymena was consulted about this raid; whether there has been a clear breach of discipline; and whether he will cause a full and searching inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to ascertaining who were the parties responsible for this attack on the liberties and rights of the Catholic population of Ballymena?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A search was carried out in Ballymena on 17th June, following the receipt of important information of local rebel activities contained in captured documents. The number of houses visited was 21. The picketing of these houses prior to the arrival of the actual search party under an officer was a necessary precaution, and there have been no complaints of an aggressive or provocative attitude on the part of the men employed on this duty, all of whom were Class A special constables.
As regards the visit to the business premises of a leading merchant, I am informed that a few of this gentleman's
employés were among those to be searched. On learning that they worked at a store, the officer conducting the search considered it advisable to search their place of business, and obtain the keys for the purpose. He visited the premises at 8 a.m. accompanied by one non-commissioned officer, but finding that no one was yet in attendance, he left immediately without conducting a search.
In the case of the hotel, the door was broken in, because of the delay in complying with a demand for admission. For their own protection the constables held up the inmates with their revolvers There were five males on the premises, and these were placed in one room. This was the only case in which men and women were separated. The invalid lady referred to was not ordered to get out of bed; her daughter was left in the same room with her while the house was searched.
The general outlines of this operation had the approval of the responsible police officials, and the inquiry which has been made discloses no breach of discipline. I understand that the occupants of the houses searched, without exception, signed a certificate that nothing had been taken, and that in the majority of cases they expressed their thanks for the courteous manner in which the search was carried out.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what justification there was for this raiding of the houses of a number of respectable citizens of Ballymena?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have said it was the receipt of important information of local rebel activities.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite a customary thing for anonymous letters to be written to the authorities in order to have these outrages committed on the persons and homes of innocent people?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I get hundreds of anonymous letters weekly myself, but this was not based on an anonymous letter.

Mr. DEVLIN: On what was it based?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it is in the public interest to say.

Mr. DEVLIN: I must demand the information, because this was one of the most disgraceful outrages committed. These people were supporters of mine, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman's servants attacked them, including an old woman of 80 years, in the middle of the night.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a speech, not a question.

Mr. DEVLIN: What redress are these people to have? They were not guilty of any offence. An old lady of 80 was dragged out of her bed.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member received an answer to his question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is there any redress to be given to these people? They live in the midst of a hostile Unionist majority, and they are marked now among the members of the community. There is no redress for them. No documents were found on them.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please put on the Paper the question about redress.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is there no limit to the outrages on these people? That is what I want to know.

SHOOTINGS.

Mr. LUNN: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a report as to the wounding of Mr. M. Leahy, who was shot by one of three men at Wren's Hotel, Cork, on 18th June; whether Leahy had been previously, arrested and only released from prison that morning; and whether his attackers have yet been traced?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This place is in the martial law area, and I have therefore asked the Commander-in-Chief for a report. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question (of which I received notice only yesterday) on one day next week.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has yet received a report on the further investigations stated on 21st April and 13th May to be still proceeding into the death of Mr. John Geoghegan, who was said to have been shot by uniformed men at Meycullen on 20th February; and, since nearly five months have now passed since his death,
whether it is yet possible to state if his murderers have been identified?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret to say that no further information has come to light in this case.

MURDERS.

Mr. LUNN: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an inquiry has yet been held into the death of a man named Reilly, of Birr, and another named Cunningham, of Belmart, both in King's County, stated to have been taken from their homes and shot on the 17th and 18th instant, respectively?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The finding of the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest held in each of these cases was that the deceased was murdered by some person or persons unknown. Both the murdered men were ex-soldiers, and were on very friendly terms with the troops stationed in the vicinity of their homes. This was probably the reason for their murder. Reilly leaves a widow and five children, and Cunningham a widow and three children.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER -SHEE: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary if he has any information with reference to the murder of Constable Patrick Clarke, of Cliffoney, County Sligo; of Constable Shanley, murdered, and Sergeant Ryan, wounded, when returning from mass at Kildorrery, County Cork, and with reference to the murder of an ex-soldier, Patrick Maher, at Moonkeena, County Tipperary, on Sunday 26th June?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for a full report on each of these cases, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question, of which I only received notice yesterday, on Thursday of next week.

LORD CHANCELLOR (APPOINTMENT).

Major C. LOWTHER: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a new Lord Chancellor has been appointed in Ireland in succession to Sir James Campbell; and what are the reasons for the change which involves a pension of £4,000 a year in addition to the pension of a like amount to another Irish ex-Chancellor?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Section 44 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, has now been brought into operation and a new
Lord Chancellor has been appointed under the altered conditions attaching to the office which include the transfer of the custody of the Great Seal of Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant. It is not intended to fill the vacancy in the Chancery Division of the High Court which has been caused by the new appointment and this and other economies in contemplation will more than counter-balance the pension of the retiring Lord Chancellor.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why was Sir James Campbell removed, and an old gentleman of nearly 70 years put in his place?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Lord Chancellor who has just retired was 70 years of age.

Mr. DEVLIN: Was he asked to retire?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His distinguished successor is a younger man. For all matters in Ireland I am responsible, and I take responsibility.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is not an answer to the question.

Major LOWTHER: Was any pressure put upon Sir James Campbell to retire, and, if so, why was pressure put upon him?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The retiring Lord Chancellor is a member of His Majesty's Government. I do not intend—I hope the House will support me—to say anything further than that the retiring Lord Chancellor goes with the usual pension, and that as a reward for his distinguished services His Majesty the King has been pleased to offer him a peerage, which he has accepted.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Pursuing our inquiries into this most disgraceful job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Sir James Campbell, a man of the greatest professional ability, was forced, against his will, out of this place which he held with distinction, in order to make way for another gentleman? May I ask secondly, with regard to this other gentleman, who has been described by the right hon. Gentleman as being the same age as Sir James Campbell, whether he was not too ill even to open the psuedo Parliament in Dublin on the day after his appointment? Finally, is it true that Sir James
Campbell first learned of his dismissal from office when he read it in the newspapers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the statement contained in the last part of the question, I am glad to say there is absolutely no truth. As to the rest of the question, I decline to add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what justification he is prepared to offer to the House and to the country for the appointment of a gentleman of 68 years of age, who is too ill to perform his duties, as a substitute for a gentleman who was in the best of health and spirits, had high legal attainments, and was the right-hand man of Lord Carson in the Provisional Government? Why he is now dismissed in favour of an old gentleman who is not fit to perform the duties of the office, while the State has imposed upon it an extra cost of £4,000 a year for this most disgraceful job? Why is this done while Dr. Addison, a decent man, is dismissed from office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Major LOWTHER: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman—

CREAMERIES (CLOSING).

Mr. WATERSON: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can give any information as to the procedure adopted by the military authority in Ireland when orders are issued for the closing down of a creamery; how much notice is given to those responsible for the creamery; whether any opportunity is given to dispose of the perishable stocks of foodstuffs; and what arrangements are made by the authorities for the utilisation of the milk which farmers cannot dispose of owing to the closing down of such creameries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reasons for the closing down of a creamery and the duration of the restriction are notified by the Military Governor by Proclamation or through the Press. The Commander-in-Chief informs me that usually the creamery manager is handed a copy of the Proclamation, and that the length of notice given varies from one to four days at the Military Governor's discretion. It is not possible in such cases
to make arrangements of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases when notice has been handed to a creamery to close on a certain date, that the closing order has been applied two or three days before the date fixed. Will he answer the last part of my question, as to what steps are being taken by the authorities for utilising the milk which farmers cannot dispose of to the creameries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No steps.

Mr. WATERSON: Are we to take it that in the case where a particular creamery is closed down, 6,000 gallons of milk a day are wasted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. As a matter of fact, most creameries are not for the sale of milk at all, but are for the sale of milk products like butter and cheese, and the shutting down of the creamery is no hardship to the people of the locality so far as milk is concerned, although it is a hardship as far as the trade in products is concerned.

Mr. WATERSON: But is not the right hon. Gentleman well aware that before the products of the creamery can be realised, milk must be secured? Seeing that the creameries are closed down, what is he doing with the milk?

Mr. WATERSON: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the Tournafulla Co-operative Creamery, Limited, Tournafulla, County Limerick, has been closed by an order of the military; whether the closure was carried out on the 12th, although the proclamation was dated 16th June; whether the military on the 19th instant took away practically all the essential books of the society; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings, which fail to achieve their object and inflict hardship and injustice upon innocent persons?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Commander-in-Chief informs me that the Tournafulla Co-operative Creamery was closed for 14 days by proclamation of the military governor dated 16th June, on account of road cutting in the neighbourhood. The local military authority, however, misinterpreted his orders and closed
the premises four days before the date decided upon. He also had the books removed, but this was remedied as soon as possible and the books returned. I am informed that necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the orders of the military governor are in future more precisely transmitted.

Mr. WATERSON: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Ballyclough co-operative creamery has been closed by an order of the military; whether the Ballyclough Co-operative Society has been warned by a military officer that the creamery would be continued to be closed for a month unless the society cleared the roads; whether in the same district Messrs. Cleeve's proprietary creamery has been allowed to remain open; and on what grounds the distinction is made between a co-operative creamery and a proprietary creamery?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that Ballyclough co-operative creamery was closed for 14 days from 16th May by order of the Military Governor as a punishment to the inhabitants for allowing malicious damage to roads and failure to repair these roads voluntarily. A warning was embodied in the Proclamation to the effect that the question of extending the period of restriction would depend upon the compliance or other of the inhabitants in keeping the roads in their locality in a serviceable condition. As has already been stated it was laid down that not more than three creameries in any one area were to be closed at one time. In this instance these creameries were selected which were in each case close to where roads had been trenched or blocked. The fact that the creameries were proprietary or co-operative did not in any way affect the selection.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this proprietary creamery is within a distance of 400 yards of the co-operative creamery? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the managers of creameries and their staffs to maintain roads when according to the law as applied in Ireland it is an illegal practice to possess the necessary arms in order to protect themselves? Seeing that these roads have been in many cases cut up by the armed forces
of the Crown, does not the right hon. Gentleman regard the closing down of the creameries as a severe injustice?

Mr. DEVLIN: That is why he does it.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman states that he closes down the creameries in order to punish the inhabitants of the district. Will he not bear in mind the fact that in punishing the inhabitants he is also punishing the people of this country by preventing them receiving the food products which they would otherwise get from these creameries?

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman does not care about that.

PRISONERS AND INTERNEES.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary how many Irish civilians, men and women respectively, are at present serving sentences of penal servitude, of imprisonment with hard labour, and of imprisonment without hard labour, respectively, for offences arising out of the political condition of the country; how many are awaiting trial for such offences; how many are interned on suspicion; and whether he is ready to provide a monthly return giving these details, together with the convictions and arrests occurring in the month?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of men convicted in Ireland of offences arising out of the disturbed state of that country and at present undergoing sentences of penal servitude, imprisonment with hard labour, and imprisonment without hard labour is respectively 376, 706, and 145. The similar figures for women—two, two, and eight, respectively. The number of men in custody and awaiting trial or where cases have not yet been investigated is 1,553, and of women 26. The number of men interned under the provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulation 14B is 3,311. There are no women interned. As regards the last part of the question, I think that the most convenient and economical method of complying with the hon. Member's request will be that he should at reasonable intervals of time put down a question on the subject.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has law and order been re-established after all this?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, in many parts of the country, and especially in that part from which the hon. Member comes.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am not an adventurer from Canada.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Ireland made a very large contribution to the medical and nursing staff of the nation during the War, and that the skill of those serving was to a large extent acquired in the voluntary hospitals of Ireland; if he will explain why Ireland was excluded from the reference to the Committee appointed by the late Minister of Health, and is in consequence excluded from the grant of £500,000 about to be made to the voluntary hospitals of the United Kingdom other than those of Ireland; and if Ireland will be granted a sum at least proportioned to her taxation as part of the United Kingdom?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that Ireland made a large contribution to the medical and nursing staff of the nation during the War. The British Government already makes an annual grant of over £16,000 to Irish hospitals. Under present conditions the Government does not see its way clear to ask the House to increase that grant. Lord Cave's Committee did not consider the condition of Irish hospitals on the ground that, under the Government of Ireland Act, hospitals in Ireland come under the provisions of the two Parliaments.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it a case of "live horse, and you will get grass." I am sure we have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy and we ask for its exercise in favour of our hospitals.

Colonel Sir J. GREIG: Are there equivalent grants in England or Scotland to hospitals from public funds?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think similar grants are not made to hospitals in England or in Scotland, but exclusively to Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman says, I am fully sympathetic, but I regret from the point of view of Ireland that the people of this country have taken the view, and indeed it is the view under the Government of Ireland Act, that matters
that come under the two Parliaments of Ireland can no longer be treated by this House, especially in face of the financial grants.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is there to be no contribution until the Irish Parliaments function concurrently? If so, we may have to wait indefinitely.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the fact that one of these Parliaments has postponed its deliberations till September and that the other does not propose to meet at all; and, in the meantime, while the hospitals are suffering and are in debt because of these political events, are they to be denied the advantages of this grant from the public Exchequer, to which Ireland pays its fair share? Answer that with all your sympathy.

AIRSHIPS.

Mr. GILBERT: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many airships are now in the possession of his Department and where they are housed; how many are of British construction and how many have been surrendered by the Germans; if his Department still have any further airships under construction; and, if so, how many, and what is the estimated cost of same?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): There are six airships in possession of the Air Ministry. The R.80 is at Howden; the R.33, the R.36, and the L.71 are at Pulham; and the R.37 and the R.38 are at Cardington, the last-named having been built for the United States. Of the six, five are of British construction and one, the L.71, was surrendered by the Germans along with another vessel, the L.64, which has been dismantled. There are no further airships under construction. The terms of the Government offer to dispose of the airships were issued as an Air Ministry Communiqué, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Colonel Sir A. SYKES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us which airship was floating over the House as hon. Members came in this afternoon?

Captain GUEST: I think it was R.33.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that in another month's
time we shall have finally disposed of these costly productions?

Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir. The final date is the 1st August.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UPPER SILESIA.

Mr. LAWSON: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British officers have resigned their posts in Upper Silesia since the beginning of March; and for what reasons?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): According to the latest information in my possession, five officers have resigned their posts in Upper Silesia. Three of these resigned on grounds of ill-health, and two for private or family reasons.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government have taken to give effect to the third resolution proposed by the Commission on International Trade at the Brussels International Financial Conference in 1920, and unanimously adopted by the Conference, in which it is recommended that each country should aim at the progressive restoration of freedom of commerce; and whether the declaration of the Supreme Council on 8th March, 1920, which stated that the States enlarged as a result of the War should at once arrange for the unrestricted interchange of commodities, is still adhered to by His Majesty's Government?

Sir P. LLOYD - GREAME: His Majesty's Government have by the progressive removal of the controls established in war time, consistently followed the course advocated by the Brussels Conference. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the Bill which is to be discussed this afternoon is in direct contradiction to the proposals of this very distinguished Conference?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. I do not think it is the least in conflict with these proposals. Perhaps the hon. and
gallant Gentleman is not aware that of the 39 countries represented at the Conference, all, I think, except this country, had protective tariffs.

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better not discuss that until the proper time.

AUSTRIAN REPARATION.

Mr. LAWSON: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the various powers have signified their willingness to suspend their liens on Austria, so that Austrian assets may be released for raising foreign credits; and for what number of years are their liens to be suspended?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Great Britain, France, Belgium, Japan, Siam, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, and Poland have accepted the principle of the suspension of their liens on account of reparations for 20 years. Great Britain, Denmark, and Sweden have agreed to a similar suspension for the same period in respect of relief credits granted to Austria.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Prime Minister what action is contemplated with regard to the reply of the Greek Government to the recent Allied representations; and what steps are being taken to end the hostilities between Greece and Turkey or to limit their scope and area?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): His Majesty's Government have not yet received the full text of the Greek reply nor considered what, if any, action it may require on their part.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be informed when the final reply is received and the action to be taken indicated?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. Of course, no action will be taken without consultation with our Allies.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be informed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. If a question is put down in the course of the next few days, I may be able to communicate something about it.

Lord R. CECIL: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will forthwith lay upon the Table a copy of the Report of the inter-Allied Commission which inquired into the recent alleged massacre of Turks by Greeks?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission upon alleged Greek atrocities. The conclusions are summarised thus in the first paragraph of the Report:
Credible evidence has been produced as to crimes committed during the last twelve months by both Greeks and Turks. There is no doubt that there have been a large number of atrocities in the Ismid Peninsula, and it appears that those on the part of the Turks have been more considerable and ferocious than those on the part of the Greeks.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when we may expect this Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: We only saw it this morning ourselves, and it has yet to be printed. As soon as these processes are gone through it will be laid on the Table of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any fresh information with regard to the situation on the Ismid Peninsula; whether the 14,000 refugees are being removed to Constantinople; whether the Soviet Commissar Chicherin has arrived at Angora and is encouraging the Kemalists to defy the Entente; and, further, whether he has any information as to negotiations taking place between the Bulgarians and the Kemalists.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no fresh information regarding the situation in Ismid except that the town was occupied by the Trukish forces on the morning of 28th June. I do not know the numbers of the refugees, nor what steps are being taken to deal with them. We have heard from Constantinople that M. Chicherin is believed to be at Angora, but have no other information. In regard to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have received from several sources indications which point to a desire on the part of the Angora Government to establish close relations with certain elements in Bulgaria.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is there any truth in the report to-day that the Allies have arrested 100 Russian Bolsheviks in Constantinople, including three Jewish commissaries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I have no official information to that effect.

Mr. MILLS: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea as to the cost per head of the unemployed persons in Constantinople and in Cyprus?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

PROCEEDINGS (PUBLICATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister how it is pro posed to inform the House of Commons of the results of, and conclusions arrived at, the Imperial Conference now sitting; whether an agreed report of the proceedings will be issued; and, in particular, whether he will make a statement of the Government's decision with regard to the renewal or otherwise of the Anglo-Japanese alliance?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Conference itself will decide what part of its proceedings shall be published. The House will be informed of the Government's decision in regard to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty as soon as it is possible to make a statement upon the subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to be given an opportunity of discussing this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would prefer that such a question should be put to the Leader of the House.

Commander BELLAIRS: May we be quite certain that the House will not be faced with anything like an accomplished fact?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House will be kept fully informed of the progress of events. This is a matter of first class policy.

IMPERIAL NAVY.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the matters relating to the Imperial Navy which are being dealt with at the Imperial Conference will be settled and the results made known to Parliament in time for them to be considered in conjunction
with Votes 8, 9, and 12 of the Navy Estimates; and whether a day will be allotted for this after the decisions of the Imperial Conference have been completed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present add anything to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend by the Leader of the House on Monday last.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is it really intended that it should be left to a small minority of this House to decide whether or not these important questions are to be discussed?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

FORESTRY TRAINING CENTRE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

Mr. RAWLINSON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister what is the amount of grant being made, or proposed to be made, either as a capital sum or annually, to Oxford University in respect of the new single centre of training in forestry; how much is being contributed by India or Australia or other Dominions towards the expense of the centre; and whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing or voting upon this question before any grant is finally made?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question was answered yesterday, and appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.

Mr. RAWLINSON: May I not have an answer to the latter part of the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would feel obliged if hon. Members put questions relating to the business of the House to the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TROOPS ABROAD (POSTAGE FACILITIES).

Sir F. HALL: 35.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the free postage facilities granted to soldiers serving abroad have been withdrawn except in the case of the forces in Mesopotamia; if so, will he state the reasons for this step; and why a distinction is drawn in favour of the Mesopotamian troops as against those serving in Palestine, Silesia, and elsewhere abroad?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. The facts are as stated in the question. The reason for the distinction is that troops in Mesopotamia are still regarded by the military authorities as serving under active service conditions.

Sir F. HALL: If they are serving under active service conditions, does my right hon. Friend not think that, in like manner, the men in Silesia and Palestine are serving under active service conditions?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That is a point which I am not in a position to determine. I must be guided by the military authorities.

Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Secretary of State for War upon this matter, and, if not, will he communicate as early as possible with the War Office in order that there may be no hardship placed upon soldiers serving in these spheres of, what has been termed, active service?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been in communication with the Secretary of State for War on the subject, and I shall continue to be in communication with him.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to give Notice that I shall put the same question to the Secretary of State for War on this day week.

AUSTRALIAN MAILS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the great irregularity, both in arrival and despatch, of the Australian mails; and whether, if the pre-War weekly service is not possible, arrangements can be made with the Peninsular and Oriental and the Orient lines that each of them shall run a mail steamer once every four weeks to give a fortnightly service at regular intervals?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The recent irregularity in the Australian mail service has been due to the difficulty experienced in obtaining coal for the mail ships, which have thus been unable to maintain their scheduled dates of departure. I hope that it will be possible at an early date to make the arrangements suggested by the hon. Member.

PICTURE POSTCARDS.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether every picture postcard with a five-word message has to be read by a member of his staff to discover whether the message is purely congratulatory or conveys information; and, if so, seeing that an immense amount of public time is being wasted and paid for while officials are so employed to the detriment of their proper work, will he see that the practice of surcharging shall be discontinued?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If this Regulation were in fact so troublesome to carry out as the hon. Member suggests, I fear that I should have no option but to prohibit any words at all. But I am happy to assure him that the trouble given in applying this Regulation (which is not a new one, but dates at least from 1903) has in practice proved negligible.

Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that experiments are being made at the present time in sending their various forms of code messages and messages on the border between questions and statements, and that the result of the examination of them by those putting them through is that some are fined an extra penny and those who are not fined an extra penny are not divided from the other kind by any reasonable line? May I also point out—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! This information ought to be given to the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby.

Sir C. OMAN: Is there not an equally obvious way of putting an end to this trouble by abolishing the extra halfpenny on picture postcards?

TELEGRAMS (ASCOT RACES).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of telegrams were sent from the Ascot grand stand telegraph office on behalf of Viscount Churchill on the evening of Wednesday, the 15th instant; whether these telegrams referred to the issue of vouchers for the grand stand, and were sent On His Majesty's Service; whether he will state the number of telegrams so transmitted, the total cost to the State, and the name of the Department by which the expenditure will be borne; and, having regard to the grave
necessity for economy, will he issue instructions that official telegrams of this character shall not be transmitted at the public expense?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the conditions in industry, commerce, trade,. and agriculture during the last three months have been such as to warrant a revision of estimates of revenue as calculated on 31st March last; and, if so, what occasion does he propose to take in order that the nation may realise that its financial position is getting worse and worse, and the consequent necessity, not only for less expenditure, but also for more and cheaper production to secure larger exports?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not in a position as yet to supplement the Budget statement. The main consideration affecting the estimates of revenue for the current year is the condition of industry, commerce, and finance in the quarter from January to March, 1922, which I cannot, of course, forecast accurately now. I do not think it probable, therefore, that I shall be able to give the House any revised figures of estimated revenue during the current Session. As regards expenditure, I certainly intend to take a suitable opportunity towards the end of the Session to make a statement on the general financial position.

EX-LORD CHALCELLORS NOW RECEIVING PENSIONS.


—
Served as Lord Chancellor.
Period.
Pension.


Great Britain—
From—
To—





Earl Halsbury
24 June, 1885
17 Aug., 1892
7 years 1 month
17 years 6 months
£5,000 p.a.


29 June, 1895
10 Dec., 1905
10 years 5 months


Earl Loreburn
11 Dec., 1905
10 June, 1912
6 years 6 months

Originally £5,000 but reduced to £2,500 p. a. from 4 Dec., 1918, at his own request.


Viscount Haldane of Cloan.
11 June, 1912
26 May, 1915
2 years 11½ months

£5,00 p.a.


Lord Buckmaster
27 May, 1915
10 Dec., 1916
1 Year 6 months

£5,000 p.a.


Ireland—







Baron Shandon
26 Mar., 1913
7 June, 1918
5 years 2 months

£3,692 6s. 1d. p.a.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does my right hon. Friend really think that the estimated revenue as anticipated by the Leader of the House in his Budget statement will be realised?

Sir R. HORNE: Oh, no; of course I do not; no sane man would.

EX-LORD CHANCELLORS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ex-Lord Chancellors in Great Britain and Ireland are receiving pensions, the amount of each pension, and the length of service in the office by each recipient?

Sir R. HORNE: With my right hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the desired particulars, which are in tabular form, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Do these gentleman serve the State at the present time, although they are pensioned?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I think probably all do upon occasion, although two of them seldom now exercise any function apart from the performance of the ordinary duties of the House.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the list so long that it must be circulated, and not read to the House?

Sir R. HORNE: No, it is not—

Mr. DEVLIN: Would you please give it, then?

Sir R. HORNE: It consists of a very large number of figures which, I am certain, that not even the most intelligent body could follow.

Following are the particulars promised:

PORTUGAL (LOAN ADVANCES).

Mr. RAPER: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government are at present negotiating a loan to Portugal; and, if so, what is the amount of such loan, the security, and the proposed terms of interest and repayment?

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no question of ah additional Government loan to Portugal, but the outstanding balance amounting to £1,500,000 of a loan made to Portugal early in 1916 has now been consolidated with other war advances to Portugal.

Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us particulars of the basis on which the balance of the old loans have been amalgamated?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that. I could not tell at the moment.

IRISH REPUBLICAN DEMONSTRATION, LONDON.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a meeting of the Irish Self-Determination League was held in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, 26th June, and that the flag of the so-called Irish Republic was carried through the streets of London under police protection; and whether he-will give instructions that in future, if permission is granted for a political demonstration, it will only be granted on the express understanding that no rebel emblems shall be carried in the procession?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am aware of the facts mentioned in the question. No permission is required for these demonstrations; it is only necessary that the rules for Trafalgar Square should be observed and order maintained. Nor can flags of any particular colours be prohibited; action can only be taken if they are used as an incitement to sedition or disorder.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a good thing to allow the colours of people who are in rebellion at the present time to be carried through the streets of
London; is he aware that, naturally, it is an outrage on the feelings of loyal people in this country?

Mr. SHORTT: I doubt whether many people knew what the flag was.

Earl WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of injury has been done to the feelings of these unfortunate fathers, mothers, and relations of the police and soldiers of this country who have been murdered in Ireland? Is he aware that this matter, if persisted in, is likely to lead to a most serious breach of the peace in London?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of those things.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him some information on the subject that will tell him something about Ireland that he does not know?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give permission for an anti-Sinn Fein meeting to be held in Trafalgar Square at the same time and place?

Mr. DEVLIN: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman hold a meeting anywhere he likes?

Colonel NEWMAN: 48.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a display of rebel flags on the Nelson monument during a recent Irish republican demonstration in Trafalgar Square; whether he is aware of the great irritation thereby occasioned to loyal citizens, and that another demonstration of a similar character has been arranged to be held in Trafalgar Square on 2nd July; and whether he will take steps to ensure that that demonstration shall not be of such a character as may lead to any breach of order?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware that flags were displayed on this occasion, but I understand that the general public treated them with indifference. I am informed that a meeting to advocate peace with Ireland is to be held in Trafalgar Square on the 2nd July. No disorder is anticipated. If any should occur the police will deal with it.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has been asked to give permission for this meeting to be held?

Mr. SHORTT: In the first place application for permission was not made to me. In any case, as long as the Regulations are complied with people are entitled to meet there.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Has any action been taken to prevent these intolerable demonstrations being held in London?

RACE MEETINGS (POLICE DUTY).

Mr. GILBERT: 49.
asked the Home Secretary the number of the Metropolitan police force who were employed during the Epsom Derby race week and the Ascot race week; who paid the charge for the men so employed; if any part of the charge for attending these race meetings falls on the Metropolitan police fund; and, if so, how much?

Mr. SHORTT: The number of Metropolitan police employed on the course at Epsom was 855, and at Ascot 524. All these were paid for. A large number of Metropolitan police were, of course, employed on the roads in the ordinary police duties of regulating traffic. I cannot give the exact number. Their cost falls, like that of other police employed elsewhere in similar duties, on the Metropolitan Police Fund.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: How do these numbers compare with the numbers of police set apart for the protection of people engaged in a much more mischievous function last Saturday at the League of Nations demonstration at Hyde Park?

LONDON DOCKS (THEFTS).

Mr. GILBERT: 50.
asked the Home Secretary whether, as a result of a deputation that waited on him recently from the City of London complaining of thefts of goods in transit through the docks and on import and export steamships, he appointed a committee to consider the matter; if this committee has yet reported; if so, what are their recommendations; and whether his Department proposes to act on the same?

Mr. SHORTT: A committee was appointed by the Commissioner of Police before I saw the deputation, and that committee has submitted a report. The committee recommends the addition of a
small detective staff to the Thames Division, and effect is being given to that proposal. The other recommendations deal with matters outside the powers of the Home Office, and I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to them at present.

Mr. GILBERT: Is that report going to be published?

Mr. SHORTT: That is under consideration; I think probably not.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Major COPE: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as Chairman of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), whether the Board still exercise the power to veto the issue of Excise licences for the retail sale of wines and spirits to be held in conjunction with, the wholesale licences for those liquors as provided for in Section 111 of the Licence (Consolidation) Act, 1910; if so, whether this veto is exercised only in the case of licences under which retail sales are made to the public, or if it is also exercised in the case of licences for sales to licensed traders for the purpose of their trade; and if in the latter case whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to small traders who require for the purpose of their trade quantities of less than two gallons of particular wines or spirits, he will consider the advisability of not exercising this veto when the sales are to licensed traders for the purpose of their trade?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): The Board retain the power to veto the issue of new Excise licences which are not granted on the authority of a Justices' licence, but for some time past they have exercised this power only in the case of retail licences. Such licences when once obtained would be available for sales both to the public and to other licensed traders, and small traders of the type mentioned in the question should experience no difficulty in obtaining the quantities which they require through the existing trade channels.

CEYLON.

Earl WINTERTON: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
the Salary Commission has yet reported on the pay and allowances of the various grades of the British personnel of the Ceylon Civil Service; and, if so, if he will state what their recommendations are in the case of the white police force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): The Salaries Commission has only recently begun its work, and its recommendations cannot be received for some time.

Earl WINTERTON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that the overcrowding in the single men's quarters of the white police force in Ceylon is such as to constitute a menace to health; whether he is aware that there is an instance of nine men sleeping in one room and six in another; and whether, having regard to the fact that the climate is a tropical one, he will at once take steps to provide better accommodation?

Mr. WOOD: I have no information, but I will ask the Governor for a report.

Earl WINTERTON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend in giving those instructions ask what steps have been taken to interview the committee properly appointed to represent these men, with a view to considering the very serious grievance which they consider they are suffering from at the present time?

Mr. WOOD: I shall be glad to put my Noble Friend's point before the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

WEST AFRICA (NATIONAL CONGRESS).

Mr. SPOOR: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further information from the Governors of Nigeria and the Gold Coast showing that the delegation from the National Congress of West Africa, which was recently in this country, was really representative of the native communities, and that it was not repudiated by the most authoritative exponents of native public opinion; and, if so, whether the representations made by the delegation will have consideration in the light of this further information?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir. All the information received tends in the opposite direction.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during the first five months of this year, the value of our exports averaged about £1,000,000 a day less than the value of our imports; if the indications for this month are any more favourable; and has he any information as to the extent to which invisible exports relieve the situation and the extent to which the recent excess of imports creates national impoverishment?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: During the first five months of the current year the excess in the declared value of the imports of merchandise into the United Kingdom over that of exports therefrom averaged £731,000 per day. I regret to say that I do not anticipate a smaller average daily excess for June than for May, when it exceeded £1,160,000. I am unable to furnish at the present time any estimate that would be at all reliable as to the earnings of British merchant shipping and other non-merchandise credits, or as to the extent and direction of the balance of our foreign obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FUND.

Mr. ATKEY: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the funds raised from the taxation of motor vehicles was intended solely for the maintenance and development of the roads; and whether grants and loans are being made to local authorities from such funds for the purchase of commercial motor vehicles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The Road Fund is solely applicable to the purposes of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by the Roads Act, 1920. As regards the second part of the question, grants and loans to a limited amount are made to highway authorities from the Road Fund towards the cost of the purchase of road plant. Vehicles required for the haulage of road materials are in some cases included in such plant.

FIRST-CLASS TICKETS.

Mr. KENNEDY: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the circumstances under which two first-class return tickets were issued, free of charge, from Glasgow to Euston, in December last, to two persons named Grant?

Mr. NEAL: I have no knowledge of the circumstances referred to, and regret, therefore, that I cannot give a specific answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Member make inquiries?

Mr. KENNEDY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask if the Minister of Transport or the Government can exercise any restraint upon granting concessions of this sort, which are granted on a very wide scale to privileged persons with interests, and are not consistent with the very large sums of public money voted—

Mr. SPEAKER: If a more specific point be put in the question, it will be possible to get an answer.

Mr. KENNEDY: I gave the date on which the concessions were granted, and the names of the persons to whom they were granted.

Mr. NEAL: To whom?

Mr. SPEAKER: By whom they were granted is the point omitted.

TRAMWAY EMPLOYÉS, PORTSDOWN AND HORNDEAN.

Mr. A. SHORT: 78.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Portsdown and Horndean Light Tramway Company recently gave notice to all their employés who were members of a trade union, and that on re-engagement wages were reduced by 9s. per week and the hours of labour extended from 48 to 60 per week; and, if so, will he take action under the Industrial Courts Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have received a communication on this matter from the United Vehicle Workers' Union, and, in view of the fact that both the Company and the Union are associated with the Joint Industrial Council for the tramway industry, the Union have been advised that the matter is one which should, in the first instance, be brought before the Joint Industrial Council for the district, whose next meeting will, it is understood, be held in the first week of July.

SEA-SCOUT MOVEMENT (DERELICT BOATS).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the desirability of encouraging the sea-scout movement, favourable terms will be quoted to them for the derelict boats now lying in the dockyards?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): Applications for boats for units officially recognised receive favourable treatment, inasmuch as facilities are afforded by which boats may be purchased at prices at which they have been laid apart for sale in His Majesty's dockyards, without putting the applicants into the position of having to compete with outside purchasers.

HOUSING (WHITNALL v. EDWARDS).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Whitnall v. Edwards, heard in the Manchester City Police Court on 24th June; whether he is aware that the complainant was an ex-lieutenant who is unable to recover possession of his own house from a tenant, who was a conscientious objector, upon the sole ground that the latter holds under an agreement which entitles him to possession until peace is declared; and whether he can take steps by legislation or otherwise to effect that, so far as the relations between landlord and tenant are concerned, the War may be deemed to be terminated?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have not seen any report of the case referred to, and if, as I gather, the decision was governed by the ordinary law of property, it would not be a matter with which my Department would be concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: This question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and I sent full details of the case referred to, and I should like to know when a question of great legal importance is addressed to the Prime Minister by an hon. Member whether there is any Regulation which prevents him getting a reply from the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: The rule is that questions which apply to a particular Department should be addressed to the Minister for that Department.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The Minister of Health, who has just purported to answer the question, has stated that his Department has nothing to do with this matter. The question relates to the definition the Government has placed upon the phrase "duration of the War." It is a question of great public importance, and I submit having addressed that to the Prime Minister it ought not to have been altered at the Table and addressed to a Minister who has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. SPEAKER: My attention has not before been drawn to this matter, but I will look into it.

EDUCATION AUTHORITIES, SCOTLAND (EXPENSES).

Mr. KENNEDY: 80.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the auditor of the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Education Department are declining to admit as legal payments made to members of education authorities at uniform rates prescribed by the Department on 8th April, 1919, for time necessarily lost from ordinary employment in attending meetings of education authorities; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that chains for payments in accordance with the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, as amended by Schedule 5, Section 5, B 2, of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, are not disputed by the Department in future?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray): It is not the practice of the auditor of the Scottish Education Department or the Scottish Education Department to raise any question as to the payment of expenses made in virtue of the Department's minute of 8th April, 1919, where it is shown that a member's occupation is remunerated on such a basis that a definite pro rata reduction of earnings is suffered by reason of his attendance at meetings of an education authority. But as at present advised the Department cannot regard it as legal for such payment to be made in other cases. The whole matter has, however,
been referred to the Scottish Law Officers, and will be further considered in the light of their opinion.

Mr. KENNEDY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it has been the custom recently to pay these expenses to miners' agents and ministers?

Mr. MURRAY: I have not sufficient information to enable me to reply to that question.

TITHE RENTCHARGE ACT.

Sir R. THOMAS: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the grave hardships accruing, to the ratepayers in many parishes from the relief afforded to the clergy by the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act; and whether he will approach the Treasury with a view to securing a special grant to meet the burden imposed by the Act?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir. I have had brought to my notice the fact that in a few exceptional cases the addition to the poundage on the rates resulting from the passing of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act has been considerable. In the great majority of parishes, however, the relief given to ecclesiastical titheowners by the Act has raised only to a slight extent the amount of rates to be paid by other ratepayers. These results were, I think, fully recognised by this House when the Bill was under consideration last year, and I regret I am unable in present circumstances to see my way to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The matter will, however, be borne in mind in connection with any proposals which may be made for dealing with the whole question of local rating.

FRUIT AND JAM (PRICES).

Earl WINTERTON: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has taken any further action with regard to the price paid to growers of soft fruit by the jam manufacturers, and the price charged by manufacturers for the fruit when made into jam to the public?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The inquiries which have been set on foot as to the
prices offered by jam manufacturers to growers of soft fruit this year have not been completed. I will inform the Noble Earl later of the result, but I should like to point out that I possess no powers which could enable me to control either the price of fruit or of jam.

Earl WINTERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that his Department is responsible in matters of this kind, and if there appears to be primâ facie evidence of a combine, is it not the duty of his Department to refer the matter to the Committee on Trusts or to the Central Profiteering Tribunal?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will certainly look into that.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless the inquiry be expedited, it would be a soft inquiry, instead of an inquiry into soft fruit?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The inquiry is being expedited.

CROWN COLONIES DEFENCE FORCES (WAR MEDALS).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has now been reached with regard to the award of a war medal to the members of the Defence Forces of those Crown Colonies and Protectorates which are not defined as a theatre of war in Army Order XX. of 1918 or Army Order 301 of 1919?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): This matter is still under consideration, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of -State hopes to make a full announcement on the subject of medals for General Service at Home at an early date.

Mr. MURRAY: When will that "early date" be? The question has been down for nearly 6 or 8 weeks.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am hoping it may be very soon indeed.

ROYAL INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that many officers of the Royal Indian Medical Service have had no English leave for many years; and
whether, having regard to the debilitating climate of India, he will take steps which will enable officers of this service to have leave at regular periods?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for Mr. Montagu): My right hon. Friend regrets that, owing to the conditions created by the War, it has not been possible to grant leave to the Indian Medical Service to the extent desirable. Every effort is being made to bring the Service up to full strength, and so make it possible to grant leave more freely. As the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, the terms of service have been immensely improved, with the object of attracting a larger number of candidates of the best type. But the falling off in the out-turn of the medical schools during the War makes this a slow process. In the meantime, all the Government of India can do is to restrict the amount of leave that may be taken by an officer at one time, so that as many officers as possible may come home.

ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the approaching question of the renewal of the alliance with Japan, any representations can be made to the Japanese to induce them to evacuate the territory of the Far Eastern Republic?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it would be very undesirable to state in advance the nature of the communications that may or may not pass between the two Governments.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.

Mr. HOGGE: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been formed of the amount which will be collected in respect of the Customs duties imposed by the Safeguarding of Industries Bill?

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the amount of goods to be dealt with by the Customs under the Safeguarding of Industries Bill; whether there is adequate warehousing
accommodation for the purposes of the Bill; and, if not, what will be the cost of providing such accommodation?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. In 1920, imports of goods of the classes specified in the Schedule amounted approximately to £3,000,000. It is not possible to frame any accurate estimate of what the value of such imports will be after the passage of the Bill. As regards Part II of the Bill, until it is known to what goods the duty will be applied (and this can only be known after complaints have been investigated by Committees to be set up) it is impossible to frame any reliable estimate of the revenue likely to be collected. It is not in contemplation to allow bonded warehousing for goods subject to duty under the Bill. In any event I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Williams) that bonded warehouses are not provided by the Crown.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it true that fleets of vessels, revenue cutters, are being fitted out to prevent smuggling?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that is an imaginative statement!

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the only figures upon which this Bill has been founded hitherto have been figures of speech?

JUVENILE PRISONERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 47.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a boy of 16, having been for six weeks in Winchester Prison without trial, committed suicide; whether there is a girl in the same prison who has been detained for six months without trial; and whether he will at once inquire whether there are similar cases of delay in trying prisoners in other prisons, with a view to expediting the course of justice and avoiding these scandals?

Mr. SHORTT: With regard to the boy of 16 who committed suicide in Winchester Prison, I would refer the hon. and gallant Baronet to the answer I gave to a question in this House on the 16th instant. On inquiry I find that the Justices refused to allow him to be released on bail pending his trial, on account of the statements he had made as to what he would do if lie were so released. I have no knowledge
of any prisoner who has been in custody as long as six months without trial, but there is a young woman of 21 who was committed on a charge of arson on the 26th of last month for trial at the Assizes, which will not be held till the middle of October, and I am now inquiring whether anything can be done to prevent such a long period of detention in prison before trial.

Sir S. HOARE: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether there are other cases of this kind in other prisons?

Mr. SHORTT: I have not been able to hear of any.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry, and send a circular to all the prisons to find out whether that is the case or not?

Mr. FRANCE: Was there any medical inquiry into the state of this lad's mental health, in view of the wild statements that he made?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the very serious scandals disclosed in the right hon. Gentleman's own answer, does he propose to take any steps to find out if a similar state of affairs exists in other prisons?

Mr. SHORTT: I am constantly in touch with the magistrates all over the country, circularising them in regard to bail, which is really the point at issue.

Earl WINTERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit his responsibility for the fact that these people have been there without trial all these months?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. I am not responsible at all. All I can do is to advise; I cannot enforce.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries at the prisons as to whether there are cases of this kind?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. We have been making inquiries, and, as I have said, I cannot hear of any.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many people are there in Ireland kept for months and months without trial, and there is none of this indignation at all?

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some legislation is not desirable in order to put a stop to these scandals?

Mr. SHORTT: We are considering that.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the Irish Office also consider it?

Mr. WATERSON: Is there any possibility of such legislation being passed this Session, there being no contention in this House on the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

DR. MACNAMARA'S STATEMENT.

Mr. J. DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement about the negotiations in the threatened dispute in the engineering trade?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am glad to say that, after prolonged conferences, a joint memorandum was signed by the Negotiating Committees at two this morning, embodying an agreement reached between the representatives of the employers' federations and the unions concerned. I need not, perhaps, read this document, but I may say that the Negotiating Committee of the unions submitted the memorandum to their delegate meeting this morning, and the meeting by resolutions approved it and agreed to recommend the same to their constituent bodies for acceptance. The employers' representatives thereupon agreed to recommend the acceptance of the memorandum to their local associations. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a sincere tribute to those who have been concerned in these negotiations, both on the side of the employers and on that of the trade unions. If I may say so, the successful issue of the negotiations is a signal illustration of what can be done when employers' and workpeople's leaders sit down together to face a problem with a real intention of grappling with it until a solution has been found. I tender my congratulations equally to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) and his colleagues who represented the employers'
federations, and to Mr. Brownlie and his colleagues who represented the trade unions.

Mr. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the period for which this settlement has been reached?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I can show my hon. Friend a copy of the agreement.

WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC (GENEVA CONFERENCE).

Viscountess ASTOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether the Government is making any recommendations through its representative to the conference on the traffic in women and children which meets at Geneva tomorrow; if so, what these recommendations are, and whether in making them they have asked the advice or secured the support of any women's organisations?

Mr. SHORTT: As I pointed out in reply to a previous question on this subject, the object of the conference is to co-ordinate the reports received from the different Governments, and to endeavour to secure a common understanding between the Governments with a view to future united action. The British representative will promote this policy, but he has not been instructed to put forward any particular proposals.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in a matter of this kind the British Government ought to have some policy?

Mr. SHORTT: The question asked is whether instructions were given to the delegate.

Sir S. HOARE: Would it not have been much better to send a woman to represent the British Government on this occasion?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

Captain ELLIOT: Is it not desirable that at any rate a woman adviser should go with the British delegate, and give assistance in co-ordinating the steps to be taken in the future?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that those who have dealt specially with this subject here in England have never been consulted, and that a man has been sent who practically knows nothing about it?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; that is not in the least correct. Our representative is accompanied by two members of the National Vigilance Association, one of whom is a woman.

Mr. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the real objection to a lady representing the Government at that function?

Mr. SHORTT: We have only one representative, and he has a lady with him as adviser.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Leader of the House when he proposes to put down the Vote which will enable the House to discuss the recent appointment of a third Lord Chancellor in Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I think that matter can be discussed, if it is the desire of Irish Members, whenever Irish Votes are put down again.

Mr. DEVLIN: When will Irish Votes be put down, and on what Vote may we discuss it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the business for next week, and whether he can now give the House the terms of the Motion to be discussed in relation to the business set down for to-morrow?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards next week, we propose on Monday to take the Second Reading of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill.
On Tuesday, Supply—Scottish Estimates.
On Wednesday, the Third allotted day of the Committee stage of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
On Thursday, Supply—Ministry of Mines Vote, and the continuation of the discussion of the Treasury Vote.
On Friday, the War Pensions Bill, Second Reading.
As regards the Ministry of Mines Vote, I am putting that down in fulfilment of the pledge that the House should, if it wishes, have an opportunity of discussing the settlement arranged in the mining industry. Some indications have reached
me, however, that the House may not wish to discuss that, and that will enable us to proceed to the important discussion on the Treasury Vote, which I think everyone desires.
As regards to-morrow, we propose to move,
That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the several Conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Conference at Washington in November, 1919.
That, I think, raises the whole question which the House wishes to discuss.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to Thursday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, supposing the second Order does not come on until after 7 o'clock, he will see the advisability of putting down, by agreement through the usual channels, some other Vote, as the understanding with my hon. Friend was that an occasion substantially equal to the first Order of the day should be given to that Vote?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the particular direction from which he has received from Members of the House an indication that there is no reason or justification for a discussion upon the recent miners' dispute?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press me to say from what sources I derive my information. I did not say there would be no justification for such a Debate, or that anyone suggested that there was no justification for it, but I have received indications from some quarters, where I thought there was a desire to discuss it, that they do not entertain that wish, and possibly the whole House may be of that opinion. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) I shall be glad if he will give me a little more time for consideration as to what business should be arranged. We should be rather glad to take as early as possible the continuation of the Treasury Vote in order that we may discuss the question of the Civil Service bonus, which is calling forth a great deal of interest and which cannot be properly treated merely by question and answer.

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the importance of the Bill set down for Monday, the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill, is it the resolve of the Government not to
allow more than one day for the Second Reading?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should imagine one day will be ample for the Second Reading.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the repeal of the Corn Production Acts is one of the most grave constitutional proceedings that this House has ever witnessed, and that therefore more than one day will be required for the Second Reading?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not for a moment deny that the question is a very important one, but the issue is a very simple one, and I hope that one day for the Second Reading will be sufficient.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to give only one day if a number of Members on all sides indicate, in the usual way, their desire to speak, and is he aware that there is as much interest taken in this question in one quarter of the House as in another?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall consider what takes place in the course of the Debate, but at the same time, if the issue be a very important one, it is a very simple one. The same issue will be raised on the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading, so that the Second Reading will not be the only opportunity that Members will have of speaking. I would venture to appeal to Members in respect of this matter to have

some regard to the amount of essential business that we must do before we rise, and to the difficulty of rising at any reasonable time unless the House will make some sacrifice of its desire to discuss every subject.

Lord R. CECIL: When my right hon. Friend says that the same issue can be raised in Committee, does he mean that the Committee stage is going to be taken in this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Captain W. BENN: When will the resumed discussion on Parliamentary control of expenditure by means of an Estimates Committee be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend talked it out after three hours' discussion the other day, and I have no hope of finding time for resuming it before 11 o'clock.

Captain BENN: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to pursue the plan of setting up a Committee to give this House control over expenditure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it will beset up on Monday if the hon. and gallant, Member withdraws his opposition.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill and the Overseas-Trade (Credits and Insurance) Amendment Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 61.

Division No. 209.]
AYES
[4.5 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Britton, G B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Brown, Major D. C.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Edge, Captain William


Atkey, A. R.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Edwards, Hugh (Giam., Neath)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Elveden, Viscount


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Carr, W. Theodore
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Casey, T. W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M


Barnston, Major Harry
Cautley, Henry Strother
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forrest, Walter


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
France. Gerald Ashburner


Betterton, Henry B.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gardner, Ernest


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Cope, Major William
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gilbert, James Daniel


Borwick, Major G. O.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Glyn, Major Ralph


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Goff, Sir R. Park


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grant, James Augustus
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Greer, Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Magnus, Sir Philip
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gretton, Colonel John
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Mitchell, William Lane
Stanton, Charles Butt.


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stevens, Marshall


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Stewart, Gershom


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Morrison, Hugh
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Sugden, W. H.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Taylor, J.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nail, Major Joseph
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Hinds, John
Neal, Arthur
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wallace, J.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Parker, James
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pearce, Sir William
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Jesson, C.
Philipps Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Johnstone, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pratt, John William
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Purchase, H. G.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Rae, H. Norman
Winterton, Earl


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wise, Frederick


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Raper, A. Baldwin
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Reid, D. D.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Remnant, Sir James
Woolcock, William James U.


Lloyd, George Butler
Renwick, Sir George
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Younger, Sir George


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)



Loseby, Captain C. E.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Dudley Ward.


Lynn, R. J.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Devlin, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Waterson, A. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Gillis, William
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers, Thomas
Wintringham, Thomas


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Grady, James



Hallas, Eldred
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Swan and Mr. Kiley.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on any Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order
(Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The, House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 64.

Division No. 210.]
AYES.
[4.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Grant, James Augustus
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Parker, James


Armitage, Robert
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Greer, Harry
Pearce, Sir William


Astor, Viscountess
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Atkey, A. R.
Gretton, Colonel John
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, William George


Banbury, Rt.- Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barnston, Major Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pratt, John William


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Purchase, H. G.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Haslam, Lewis
Rae, H. Norman


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Reid, D. D.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hills, Major John Waller
Remnant, Sir James


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hinds, John
Renwick, Sir George


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Britton, G. B.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rounded, Colonel R. F.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Jephcott, A. R.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jesson, C.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Carr, W. Theodore
Johnstone, Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Casey, T. W.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cautley, Henry Strother
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanton, Charles Butt


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stevens, Marshall


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Stewart, Gershom


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sturrock. J. Leng


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sugden, W. H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lloyd, George Butler
Taylor, J.


Cope, Major William
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Walton. J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lynn, R. J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edge, Captain William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Edwards, Major. J. (Aberavon)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Elveden, Viscount
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Mitchell, William Lane
Winterton, Earl


Evans, Ernest
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wise, Frederick


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Morrison, Hugh
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert.
Woolcock, William James U.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gardner, Ernest
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Younger, Sir George


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)



Gilbert, James Daniel
Nail, Major Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Glyn, Major Ralph
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)




Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Irving, Dan
Sitch, Charles H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, B. G.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, Thomas
Swan, J. E


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Devlin, Joseph
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
Wignall, James


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, Rt. Hop. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hallas, Eldred
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Rendall, Athelstan
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Short and Mr. J. Davison.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

THOMAS EDWARD M'CONNELL, Esquire, for the Borough of Belfast (Duncairn Division).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL,

"to amend the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1920, with respect to interruptions of residence during the qualifying period," presented by Mr. SHOKTT; supported by Sir Alfred Mond and Sir John Baird; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 159.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 160.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 160.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment, the Select Committee on Divorce Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. Morison.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Deputy-Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Railways Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

BASTARDY BILL (CHANGED TO "CHILDREN OF UNMARRIED PARENTS BILL").

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 161.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 162.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) (No. 3) Bill,

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Tithe Annuities Apportionment Bill, with an Amendment.

Unemployment Insurance Bill,

Radcliffe and Little Lever Joint Gas Board Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Lymington Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Westminster City Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Hastings Tramways Company to construct extension tramways in the county borough of Hastings and for other purposes."

[Hastings Tramways (Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the John Newland Endowment." [John Newland Endowment Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Bessie Alice, Marchioness Conyngham, of 15, Somers Place, Paddington, in the county of London, with Frederick William Burton, Marquis Conyngham, a Peer of the Realm, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Conyngham's Divorce Bill [Lords.].]

CONYNGHAM'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a; Second time.

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to-the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

JOHN NEWLAND ENDOWMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private-Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board of Trade to apply Part II to certain goods.)

(1) If, on complaint being made to the Board to that effect, it appears to the Board that goods of any class or description (other than articles of food or drink) manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom—

(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter denned; or
(b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;
and that by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being or is likely to be seriously affected, the Board may refer the matter for inquiry to a committee constituted for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(2) If the committee report that as respects goods of any class or description manufactured in any country the conditions aforesaid are fulfilled the Board may by order apply this Part of this Act to goods of that class or description if manufactured in that country:

Provided that no such order shall be made which is at variance with any treaty, convention or engagement with any foreign State in force for the time being.

(3) An order made under this Section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made for a period of twenty-one days during which that House has sat, and if that House before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the order His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and thereupon the order shall become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "fulfilled" ["are fulfilled the"], to insert the words, "and that the effect of an order made under this Part of this Act will not diminish the aggregate employment in the United Kingdom."
The words proposed to be inserted affect the duties that are to be imposed upon
a Committee to be set up. That Committee is to report as to whether certain conditions are fulfilled, and those conditions are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1). They are to report whether goods are being sold

"(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined; or
(b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;"
We ask that, having reported on these conditions, they should also report as to whether the effect of an Order made under this part of the Act would be to diminish the aggregate employment in the United Kingdom. This Amendment is designed to touch what we believe to be the fundamental fallacy of this part of the Bill, namely, that by making things dearer in this country you can increase employment. The reason for Part II is to increase employment. The reason for Part I is to increase national security. The Government desire to see the largest number of people employed, and they think that they are going to secure that by increasing the price of things that come into the country. That is a theory which has been better expounded in this House by the Minister of Health than by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Secretary for Overseas Trade.
I do not know whether the attack on the Free Trade position will be continued in the same way during this Debate as it has been conducted in the preceding Debates. It has become almost routine. There is an assault, if I may say so without offence, by the comparatively light artillery now in position on the Treasury Bench, and at a certain hour the very heavy gun is brought into action. I congratulate the Protectionists on having captured a very heavy Free Trade gun and on getting it into position on the Treasury Bench. We are subject to bombardment from that weapon. I do not know of anything like it in military warfare except the bombardment of Paris by Big Bertha during the War; a weapon the whereabouts of which could not be discovered during the day, but which reappeared at regular times on certain evenings. So far as my recollection goes, the damage to Paris was not very excessive, and I do not think the Free Trade position is suffering very much
even from the attack of the big gun now. The Protectionists are to be congratulated—

The CHAIRMAN: I am waiting to discover at what moment the hon. Member is going to approach the question of unemployment.

Major BARNES: I am sorry if I have left you in any situation of anxiety, and I will come to the point as quickly as may be. My point is that, under the circumstances to which I was referring, the Government and the Protectionists are to be congratulated on the fact not only that they have captured this big gun, but that they are finding that their old ammunition fits the bore. No argument is more familiar to us in dealing with Protection than the argument that Protection is a means of remedying the evils of unemployment. The only argument that has been employed in this Debate in regard to Part II is that by introducing this Measure of Protection and imposing duties of 33½ per cent. we are going to increase the amount of employment and to decrease the amount of unemployment proportionately. It is rather a happy coincidence that this Debate will be followed immediately by a Debate upon a Bill which is being brought in by the Government to deal with unemployment in another way—relieving it by paying a money dole.
We all feel that that is a very unsatisfactory way to deal with unemployment. It is better that people should receive relief and not be exposed to the privations which unemployment brings, but all of us are agreed that it is better for people to be at work earning money than to be out of work receiving assistance from the Imperial Exchequer or the rates; and if this proposal of the Government were a real solution of the problem of unemployment, and would indeed set people to work, to no party would it be more welcome than to those in this quarter. But in this Debate there has already been comment on the significant fact that the party which might be expected to welcome proposals to deal with the problem is the party which is as critical as any other in this House of the present proposals. They have received no approval from the Labour party. A body of men very far removed from the Labour party have been announcing what they consider to be proposals which would improve the trade of this country, and in
consequence reduce unemployment. What the bankers have said has been referred to over and over again in this Debate, but their opinion is looked upon as of no value by those upon the Treasury Bench.
The view of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), the Minister of Health, and the occupants of the Treasury Bench is that the bankers know nothing when they suggest that the real way to cure the evil of unemployment is to get back to a sound currency and normal healthy conditions of trade. They scout the Government proposal of curing unemployment by raising prices of certain articles by 4d. in the shilling and making things coming into this country cost 6s. 8d. in the pound more than they did before. We have had no arguments in support of that theory. In pre-War days there was an attempt to support that thesis, but it was a complete failure. We are probably not in so good a position to-day as we were before the War to meet these arguments, because we have not got the statistics to-day that were available in the great controversies in pre-War times. One has to fall back on the figures which were used then. The assumption of the Bill is that if you can stop a certain number of manufactured articles coming into this country you are going to make more work for the people at home. We contest that, at all events in theory at least, by such facts as we know of with regard to the years before the War. I have some figures abstracted from the statistical abstract of the Board of Trade, which give, on the one hand, the net imports of manufactures from 1904 to 1913, and, on the other hand, the rate of unemployment in those same years. If the theory of the Government were correct, the more manufactured articles come into this country the greater would be the unemployment.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The thing is not so simple.

Major BARNES: That is so, but that is the argument of Part II of the Bill. It is, "Here is a disease—Unemployment. It is caused by goods being sold here at certain prices. The remedy is to put those prices up." The figures show that the very reverse was the case, and that as the imports of manufactures increase the rate of unemployment decreases. From 1909 to 1913 the net imports of manufacturers increased from £123,000,000 to £164,000,000. On the theory of the Bill
unemployment should have increased with it. Instead of that unemployment decreased from 7.07 per cent. in 1909 to 2.1 per cent. in 1913. Those figures are Government figures based on a survey of the whole country and not figures brought forward by partisans to support a particular industry. You may say it is theory on one side and theory on the other side, but the figures do support our theory. You cannot cure unemployment by keeping goods out of this country, and by letting goods in cheaper you do the reverse and increase work here.
If the Government view or the view of Protectionists generally be true, that you are going to cure unemployment by putting on tariffs and raising prices, one would expect making a survey of the world at present that you would find unemployment at its lowest in countries which enjoy all the blessings of a tariff. That is not so. The Minister of Health when speaking I think only last night pointed out that in America there are at least 4,000,000 people unemployed. America enjoys all the blessings of a tariff, and a tariff very much greater in intensity and severity than the one proposed in this Bill. There is not the slightest ground for believing that what the Government propose here is a real remedy. I commend to hon. Members who are interested in this matter—of course, nobody would vote who is not interested—a study of the June number of the "Labour Gazette." No doubt both the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department are perfectly familiar with those figures which the Gazette contains—figures of unemployment, not only in this country, but in countries overseas. The latter figures may have been furnished by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department who, no doubt, is thoroughly familiar with them. The figures are given for all the principal countries, including Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and the United States. In all these countries, it does not matter whether they are whole-hog Protectionists or enjoy more or less of a tariff system, you will find that the figures for unemployment are considerable.

Sir F. YOUNG: You do not blame the Coalition here for that.

Major BARNES: It may be that the principles which are represented by the
Coalition Government are in general operation throughout the world. What the figures do show is that you are not going to cure this evil by putting on a a tariff. In Belgium the percentage of unemployed was 31.5 on the last working day of March. In Holland there were 22.5 per cent. of the members of trade unions affiliated to insurance funds out of work in March. Wherever you turn you find this state of things. Obviously it cannot be connected with questions of Free Trade or of Tariff. The Free Trade position has never been that by its operation you will eliminate this problem of unemployment. Its position has been that, under the operation of Free Trade, employment was more secure, less uncertain than it could be in this country at least under the operation of a tariff, and under Free Trade you do get such accumulations of wealth as enable you in times of bad trade to make provision to deal with that situation when it arises. Our suggestion is that the Committee, when reporting on this matter, should not consider the effect of any particular import on any particular industry, but should consider what would be the effect of imposing this tariff on the whole of the industries of the country.
It is a simple matter to show that imports do affect some particular industry. There is no need to argue that. If a chair is imported into this country it is obvious that if it is wanted in this country and is not imported it would be made here, and it might be said that its importation would put a chair maker out of work. It is always possible to show, if you are dealing with particular industries, that a certain amount of unemployment would ensue. The Free Trade position is that, taking industries as a whole, imports make exports, and if imports come into the country, after certain adjustments of industry, any loss is far more than compensated for by the conditions of industry brought about by the export trade that is produced. I do not want to rely upon theory but upon facts, and I want to bring before the attention of the Minister two communications that I have received. One is from the paper-using industries of this country, who are concerned at the prospect that under this Bill there may be a protective duty placed upon paper imports. That is being urged, and hon. Members have received appeals from the paper-makers of this country to be in-
cluded in this Bill. What do these paper-users say? They are not politicians; I do not know that they are free traders, but they have very sound ideas on this subject, for they say:
The natural result of such protective duty would be to restrict the supplies from overseas and to enable British manufacturers to charge a higher price for their productions than they could under the present conditions.
They are supported in that by the Minister of Health. They go on to consider the question of unemployment, and they make the point that our Amendment is intended to make, that if by the operation of this Bill you increase employment in one industry, you will diminish it in others, and what we say is that the amount by which you will diminish it in others is greater than the extent to which you will possibly increase it in those who get the benefit of this Bill. They go on to say:
When considering the question of unemployment from a national standpoint, it is necessary to consider the number of persons engaged in the respective industries, he principal industries in which paper is the raw material are the printing, bookbinding, manufacturing stationery, and cardboard box trades, and the newspaper and publishing trades. The number employed in these trades is 262,000, omitting boys and girls under 16 years of age. The number of persons employed in the paper and wallpaper making trade is 53,000. In other words, the principal paper using trades employ five times as many people as the paper making trade, and any increase in the cost of paper, although it might benefit the paper makers, only increases the unemployment in the much more important trades that use paper.
That is a statement which is not made from any party point of view, but it is made by a number of people who are actually engaged in the businesses that would be affected if paper came under the operation of this Bill. Under Part II of the Bill everything that comes into this country, with the exception of food and raw material, may be affected, and these people have a very real fear of what may happen. They point out, in the paragraph that I have read, what we are pointing out in our Amendment, that by imposing a duty which will benefit one section of people and increase employment in that section, you will be producing a very much larger degree of unemployment in other sections.
Lastly, I have a memorial from the British Steel Re-Rollers in this country,
who are also afraid of the operation of the Bill. This is a memorial signed by a very large number of firms in different parts of the country, some in Scotland, some in Wolverhampton, some in Birmingham, some in Sheffield, some in Walsall, some on the Tees, some on the Tyne; in every part of this country you have got these people afraid of the operation of this Bill. They say:
Free imported semi-raw steel is the life blood of the British re-rolling industry, without which they could not successfully compete with other nations in the world's markets for the more highly finished products in which. British re-rollers have specialised.
What are they afraid of? They are afraid of your 33⅓ per cent. duty. They have been told quite plainly in this Debate what to fear, for I think the Minister himself said that semi-raw steel is just the sort of thing that may come under this Bill, and here are these great firms afraid of that and pointing out what the effect of a duty on semi-raw steel is going to be. They say:
If semi-raw steel should be brought within the operations of this Bill, the price will be immediately advanced, and consequently our large export trade in finished products will be greatly diminished, if not entirely cut off.
This is only an illustration. Here are one or two trades who have realised the dangers of this Bill and who have become vocal, but this Bill threatens every trade in the country. It threatens the whole export trade of this country, and if there is one thing we have learned during the last year or so, it is that upon the maintenance of a great volume of export trade our commercial and industrial prosperity depends. I tell the Minister that what he is getting here are only the first rumblings of the storm and that when the full extent of the possible operations of this Bill is known, and when the manufacturers of this country, who have built up a huge export trade, come to realise that its very foundations are threatened by this Bill, all the specious pleas that under this Bill you are going to reduce unemployment will be of no avail. The facts will discount them, and events will show that, so far from decreasing unemployment by this Bill, the volume of it will be vastly increased.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) has dealt very fully with the broad principles of this question,
and I should like briefly to give one or two illustrations in detail of the serious injury which is threatened to the iron and steel industry of this country, and particularly the re-rolling section, by this Bill. I may say that my own business would, if anything, be benefited by the protection which is offered, but I am satisfied, from an experience of some years in the iron and steel trade, that for the benefit of the trade as a whole it is most desirable that there should be no hindrances placed on the import of semi-manufactured productions. What is the position? The Minister of Health said we must keep out these semi-manufactured articles in order to help the iron and steel industry, who have spent a tremendous amount of money during the War in order to provide the steel necessary for this country; but would you really help the iron and steel industry by these duties? Germany, Belgium, France, and the other countries are going to continue manufacturing whether these duties are put on or not. You may, for the sake of argument, prevent some of the products coming into this country, but you would simply drive them into other markets. The English manufacturer of angles, bars, or whatever it may be will have to face the same competition, but will have to face it in the markets to which this cheaper material goes. In my own district we have a works which are rolling out these semi-manufactured products in the shape of billets. The same works re-roll them into wire rods, sheets, etc., for export abroad. They find, as a matter of practical experience, that they can buy these semi-manufactured products, billets, and so forth at a cheaper price abroad than they can manufacture them themselves.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMSON: Well, they buy them from abroad. He wants them excluded, but if you exclude them, it will not mean that your mills which make the rods and sheets will be able to buy these goods from the English steelmaker, because he cannot produce these goods cheap enough for competition with the foreign market. It will simply mean that you will close down your re-rolling sections, employing thousands and thousands of men, in many hundreds of works, and you will do no good whatever to the steel manufacturer in this country. During the past 20 or 30 years the manufacturers of rods,
sheets, wire, and so on, have built up a new trade for this country, a huge export trade, which is absolutely and entirely dependent upon free access from the Continent of these cheaper goods. I do not say for one moment that they are kept going wholly by the import of these goods. It is unnecessary that they should supply more than a small percentage, but the very fact that these goods come in without these duties keeps down the price of the home product in the same line. An hon. Gentleman opposite yesterday belittled the suggestion that this Bill would play into the hands of trusts and combines. Anyone in the iron and steel industry knows that you have rings and combinations which control prices absolutely and entirely, and if you have not the import of this foreign material, which is outside the rings and the combinations, they will put their prices up to an unheard-of extent and cripple entirely the re-export trade of the country, as well as make the prices of the home market dearer than they are at present.
We want to look at the question from the whole point of view, and not from one particular trade's point of view. It is possible that owing to bars coming into the country some men engaged in that particular trade may be thrown out of work in that trade, but, if they are, work is found for infinitely more men in the re-rolling sections, employing highly skilled labour, which is specialised, with great technical skill, and which has grown up and been developed in this country on this very class of material during the last 20 or 30 years, and if you cut off the supplies of cheap material you will close down hundreds of works and throw out of employment thousands of men. The reason why we press this Amendment is that if you are really concerned, as we are all concerned, with the question of employment, you want to consider what is going to be the net result of your operations, and though you may possibly keep one or two works engaged on fuller time in one class of industry, you are going to throw out infinitely more men and close infinitely more works in another class of industry. We have established in this country a record of skill for bridge-building and engineering work second to none in the world. How is it that we are able to carry that on so successfully? It is because we have free access to the Con-
tinent for the cheapest manufactured plates, angles, and sections required in the construction of these bridges and other engineering works. The great advertisement of one big firm in my own part of the country is, "We bridge the world." They have supplied bridges in every section of the Empire and of the world, and that industry is built up entirely by the fact that they can get their semi - manufactured material, plates, angles, sections, and girders in the cheapest market the world can supply, and because of that they can employ infinitely more men on bridge-building and on constructional work than would be employed on rolling out the sections or manufacturing the girders.
5.0 P.M.
The whole point, therefore, is that we, with our skill as manufacturers, want to put our labour on to that which gives the most employment to labour, and infinitely more employment is found for labour, and infinitely more money is paid in wages, when you come to the highly skilled and specialised industries than on the raw material of those industries. Therefore, as a manufacturing nation, it pays us every time to forego, if you will, the manufacture of the semi-manufactured product, on which a comparatively small amount of labour is required, in order to get this cheaper semi-manufactured product from abroad and place our men and our works on the more highly skilled manufactures, which give much more employment and enable us to compete with the trade of the world. What happened before the War? We had in our own district billets sent from Germany to mills in this country. They were rolled out into wire and sections, and that same wire was sent back into Germany and was able to compete with the German wire maker who had his own billets at his own door. That can be exemplified by whichever line you like to take. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that we want to weigh up very carefully what is going to be the full effect of a Clause of this kind. I am satisfied if you canvass the whole position and inquire from manufacturers throughout the length and breadth of the land you will find you are killing industry. Although you may keep this material out of this country you would have to face the same competition in India, Egypt,
Australia, Norway, Sweden, whatever part of the world we send our products to, and you will find in the end work will not be provided for workers in this country but rather reduced.
We were told yesterday that industry was being ruined, that there was a flood of goods coming into this country. What evidence have we of that? Can you point to a single industry of any size that is being ruined, or can you point to any case where goods are coming in to anything like the same extent that they did before the War? In my own particular trade, heavy iron and steel, the imports to this country to-day from outside are nothing like what they were in 1913. Yet we are told we have to unsettle the whole trade of the country because of some fear, unfounded at present, which may materialise in the future. If there is one thing that manufacturers in this country require it is stability and certainty, and by proposing, far less carrying out, legislation of this sort you are creating fear and uncertainty in the minds of manufacturers. They do not know whether it is safe to quote for contracts or make business arrangements ahead, and this mere uncertainty is doing more harm and causing more unemployment than any good that can result from this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade was asked the other day if he could give the amount of imports from Germany during this year as compared with last year. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) he said comparative figures were not available for the period for which they were asked, but he would give them for the first quarter of this year. The total imports into this country from Germany during the first quarter of this year were £7,000,000, as compared with, not the first quarter of 1914, but the whole year 1914, £37,000,000. I will not suggest that he intended that we should draw the conclusion that if we multiplied by four we should get the comparative figures, but we must remember that during the year 1914 imports were coming in for seven months only because of the intervention of the War. Therefore you had £37,000,000 worth of imports for seven months, which is equivalent to £65,000,000 in the year. This year you have £7,000,000 worth for the first quarter, which is equivalent to £28,000,000 per year. Then you have to remember that the values are different. When you
take that into account your comparative figures would be something like £3,000,000 coming in in the first three months as against £20,000,000 before the War. Yet we talk about our industries being ruined! The whole thing is built up on a superstructure of fear for which there is no foundation in fact, and I urge the Government, if they are really intending to reduce unemployment and provide work, they should accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. They should envisage the whole question, and not look merely at one particular industry, and by that means we may safeguard the trade which is still left to us.

Mr. ASQUITH: I confess I think this is really an important Amendment, and it is to my mind an extreme discredit to the House of Commons that the discussion upon it should be conducted as it is being conducted this afternoon in the presence of less than a quorum of Members. I desire in a very few sentences to suggest to the Government—and I purposely rise before we have heard any declaration from that Bench—that upon their own assumptions, and accepting their own avowed purposes, the introduction of these words would be an enormous practical improvement to their Bill. I am one of those, like my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate, who think that the whole of this Clause is based on misconception, that it provides a vicious remedy for an unreal disease. Let us assume, for the purposes of the argument, and only for the purposes of the argument, that a case can conceivably be made out for intervention on the part of the State, that either through what is called dumping, or through the artificial stimulus given to particular kinds of foreign importations through a depreciated exchange, goods are brought into this market under abnormal conditions, with the result that in certain departments of British industry there is at any rate a prima facie case for inquiry as to whether there is or is not consequential unemployment. That is the inquiry which, as I understand, is to be entrusted to the Committee under this Clause. If that is so, it appears to me that the argument put forward by my two hon. Friends who have spoken is quite irresistible, namely, that this Committee should not and ought not to confine the scope of their vision and the range of
their inquiry to the effect upon employment in the particular industry whose production is directly affected by foreign importations, but that they ought, in the interest of the community at large, to have regard to the aggregate employment in all industries. That seems to me to be an elementary proposition which has only to be asserted to commend itself to everybody's common sense. Both my hon. Friends, from their practical knowledge and experience, gave some illustrations of the effect, the disastrous effect, upon general employment which might arise if we were to confine the inquiry in the manner in which it is confined for the purposes of this Clause.
I pointed out some weeks ago, in addressing the Committee on the introductory Financial Resolutions, that of our total importations of what the Board of Trade describe as wholly or mainly or partly manufactured goods, no less than 60 per cent. come here, not as finished products capable of being put on to the market; they come here to receive the finishing processes which British capital and British labour, of all forms of Capital and labour in the world, are best able to supply, and in just as true a sense as cotton or wool are raw materials for the manufacture of goods. It is quite true that in not a few cases these partially finished imported manufactures compete with similar productions here, but the question is, and I put it to the clear intelligence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is not obscured and mystified as some minds are when they approach the consideration of these economic problems—I put it to him, in the interests of the community, if you are going to have intervention of this kind, which I do not think you ought to have, whether you should have regard merely to the possibility of diminution of employment in the particular industry in which the partly manufactured article is produced, and should wholly disregard as irrelevant and immaterial, and as having nothing whatever to do with the case the damage which is being done to the other often much greater and more important industries in which the imported so-called manufactured goods are raw materials. Some illustrations have been given by people with much greater knowledge of the details of trade and manufacture than I have, and my hon.
Friend who has just sat down, in particular, has dealt with the very important memorial which was circulated widely among Members of the House in regard to the importation of semi-raw steel.
I will just give in that connection some facts which have been described to me, which I believe to be absolutely verifiable. They are in regard to what is called steel sheets. On the north-east coast the manufacturers of steel sheets are buying at this moment Belgian steel bars at £6 10s. a ton. They export 75 per cent. of their whole production to foreign markets, and they are just able, and only just able, to do so at a profit. The cost of English steel bars is £13, exactly double the cost of the imported Belgian raw material. If this 33⅓ per cent. duty were imposed upon the imported Belgian steel bars, assuming Belgium is selected as one of the countries in regard to which these experiments are to be made, their cost would be raised from £6 10s. per ton to £8 15s., and the effect of that to this very large body of English manufacturers, who supply the finished goods, who now export 75 per cent. of their total production with just a fair margin of profit—the effect will be they will be completely killed as exporters in the neutral markets. All these things hang together.

Mr. KILEY: There is a further 25 per cent.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am not piling up the agony. I am dealing with the case in its simplest and most naked form. The English corresponding raw material costs double what the Belgian raw material costs, and you are going artificially to protect that English trade which for reasons I do not inquire into for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wages and coal."] We have got to deal with things as they are. This is not the way to bring wages down. You are going to erect an artificial ringed fence of protection, and compel your English manufacturer to pay twice what he is at present paying for the essential raw materials of his industry, in order to keep this comparatively small production going. That is the case which has to be answered. Take the illustration of leather. I believe a precisely similar case could be made out there. My attention has been called to it more than
once. The diminution in our export trade of manufactured leather is a very serious thing. Let us compare the exports for the first five months of 1913 and those for the first five months of the present year. The exports of boots and shoes in the first five months of 1913 were 586,000 pairs, which were valued, at the prices that then ruled, very much lower prices than those which rule now, at £1,700,000. The exports for the corresponding five months of the present year were fewer than 150,000 pairs, valued, at the present higher prices, at £1,000,000.
At a moment like that you are going to put it in the power of this Committee to impose an import duty upon what in the technical sense are undoubtedly manufactured goods, namely, patent leather, glace kid and calf, which are the materials out of which boots and shoes are made. You will do far more harm to a great, and for the moment depressed, industry, in which this country has in days gone by enjoyed almost supremacy in the markets of the world by handicapping the supply of their raw material, than by permitting the import of the leather without this impost. It is much the same with paper. This is one of the subjects on which I may be regarded as an obscurantist. Paper is one of the things of which I should not be at all sorry to see the price go up. But that is a personal feeling. We are dealing now with the general interests of the community. The point I want to make is, I think, unanswerable. If you are going to have legislation of this kind, and if you are going to set up committees of this kind, and are to give them, with or without the consent of the House of Commons, the power of imposing large import duties upon foreign manufactures, and if the ground upon which you make that claim is the possible deleterious effect of such importation on British employment, look at British employment as a whole, and not at the interests of this or that particular trade, and instruct your committees always to have that in view.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): The right hon. Gentleman has said with all the weight of his authority that the case he has put was unanswerable. That makes me very nervous in attempting to reply to him. But, of course, there is another side to the case which the right hon. Gentleman put with his accustomed persuasive skill. I
think I appreciate the points which were put by him and by the hon. Members who spoke before him. If I may say so, the hon. Members who spoke before him seemed to be dealing not so much with the words of the Amendment as with the general, question that has been so often discussed, Free Trade versus Protection. A great deal that they said might have been very apposite had we been discussing the question of a general tariff. The hon. Member seemed to me just to miss the point of the special circumstances of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Paisley in his remarks brought the discussion to the much narrower point of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposition he put was elementary. I am sure he will agree that all elementary things are by far the most difficult things to deal with in this world. It is a perfectly obvious thing, I agree, that if it were possible by any form of investigation that human skill can devise to get all the facts in one of these cases, it would be desirable. The task that is laid upon the Committee is a comparatively simple one. They have to decide on what are really questions of fact and questions of comparatively simple fact. If they had to inquire into the question whether or not there is a disturbance of the whole vast reservoir of labour in this country, I believe that the inquiry in each case might be protracted into months and no decision would be reached.
If anything is to be done on the lines of this Bill I should rule out this Amendment as making the working of the Bill absolutely impracticable. Let me illustrate what I mean. I will touch on the case raised by the right hon. Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). With reference to the question of paper, I should say, in passing, that I had the pleasure of meeting a very large and representative deputation of paper users, who put their views before me and pointed out some of the tragic results that might happen if there was any difficulty in obtaining paper. The paper question is a very simple one compared, for instance, with the question of ship-building, and compared with the points raised to-day. What would the difficulties be to investigate further than is provided for in the Bill such questions of trade as have been raised with regard to the bars and billets and girders? The hon. Member for
Middlesbrough spoke with enthusiasm of the tens of thousands of men employed in the finishing processes, and from what he said and from what the right hon. Member for Paisley said, the Committee would gather that the men employed in making the goods up to the point where these particular goods are imported are negligible in number. Without going into details, I might remind the Committee that even this is a much less simple matter than appears on the surface.
Take these bars that for the moment are coming from Belgium. Suppose it were true—I do not know whether it be or not—that these particular bars were being sold in this country at something below the cost of production, or owing to the depreciated currency in the country of export they were enjoying a bounty-fed subsidy, and suppose it were true that by their importation employment in the particular industry was being affected. What is that employment? That employment comprises the men who are employed in rolling the bars; it comprises the men who make the raw materials for the bars; it comprises the men who work the blast furnaces; it comprises the men who work the limestone quarries and produce the limestone for the blast furnaces; it comprises the men who mine the ore used in the manufacture of pig-iron; it comprises the men employed in the transport of these articles; it comprises the men who dig the coal that is used in all these processes up to that point; and it comprises the men who are employed in the conversion of so much of that coal as is required for coke, and also the men who are employed in obtaining the byproducts from the coal.
I mention that to show how extraordinarily difficult it is to say what the labour displaced on the one side would be as against the labour displaced on the other, even assuming—here is the biggest hypothesis of the lot—that the man who bought the goods which for the time being were being dumped was unable to secure orders if he could not get the dumped article. I do not believe that any tribunal on earth could follow out those two chains in those two directions and give any satisfactory answer. The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) laid great stress on a point that I have never used. He said that this was a Bill to increase
employment. It is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill to prevent unemployment when caused by a certain course of action which is described in the first Sub-section of the second Clause of the Bill. It is something that is temporary and sporadic. It is no general tariff. The Bill is devised to meet a contingency, and a contingency that we hope and believe is a temporary contingency. Other countries are attempting, with what success we shall see later on, to do the same thing. I think that probably before long a great many countries will make the attempt.
I have been ridiculed for telling the Committee quite frankly that it is impossible to say whether this attempt will be successful or not. It is an attempt that has never been made before, because the circumstances in which it is being made have never before existed. A great deal of the criticism levelled against us fails because it never recognises that fact. Our whole case is that the circumstances are entirely new, and that we are attempting to do something to meet dangers which we believe are inherent in those circumstances. The time for our Debate is short, and it is with great reluctance that I stand at all in the way of Members who desire to express their views. I have said all I have to say on this point. I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I have given. I have considered the matter very carefully because I can quite see the possibility of cases in which there might be some temporary dumping under the exchange part of the Bill, that might have the very effect which hon. Members dread. I do not think it is likely, but I think it is possible, and I am trying before the Bill passes out our hands to find some means by which the Committee may be enabled to take cognisance of some facts other than those directly concerned with the one industry. I do not know whether I shall be able to do what I have in my mind, but so far as this Amendment goes it would open the door to so much investigation that it would paralyse any action under this Bill.

Sir W. BARTON: I am sure the Committee is very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for his interesting speech, and especially for the closing sentences, because I am quite sure if he sets his practical mind to this point he will realise that the proposal of the Bill
is impracticable and unworkable. He has informed us that his objection to the criticism passed in connection with this Amendment is that it fails to realise that this is a Bill dealing with temporary circumstances—with new circumstances, and with new conditions. I submit to him that, after all, the novelty is only a question of degree. We had dumping before now, and we have had some experience of depreciated exchanges. I am not sure that the fact of an extension of degree necessarily alters the principle by which we must try to meet a particular difficulty. Examining the paragraph with which this Amendment deals, I think it provides a very strong case for the Amendment. I find the words, applying to certain eventualities,
if by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being, or is likely to be, affected.
Who shall decide whether employment is likely to be affected? I never knew an unenterprising manufacturer yet, who, confronted with severe competition, was not ready to go to a Government Department and ask for help on the assurance that his business was likely to be affected. The inefficient trader is always sure that his business is likely to be affected. He is always dreading that the whole business of the country is likely to be affected. He always sees black.
One of the most dangerous features of what you are proposing to do now is that instead of looking at trade and industry whole, as this House and as British Governments have always done in the past, you are now going to look at it in sections. I feel very strongly that you are thinking of pianos and toys and opera glasses when you should be thinking of our great staple industries, and lying behind your proposals I see a great danger to those industries. The President of the Board of Trade, following up an illustration given by one of my hon. Friends, dealt with steel, and he said the displacement of employment caused by the importation of steel went much further than the actual productive processes in connection with steel in this country. He went on to tell us of all the other different processes in which employment would be displaced. I wonder he did not get down to the baker, the butcher, and the shoemaker. It was a regular "house that Jack built." I am not complaining of that, because, as
a matter of fact, I think the President of the Board of Trade was right on that particular ground, but the point is this, that by putting on a duty and not allowing the steel to come in, it does not necessarily follow you will remedy that. You will only cut off possibilities from shipbuilding and other industries. I will give you an instance. A shipbuilding firm has the offer of a contract, say, from the Chilian Government, to build ships. They will not buy Belgian or German steel. They are highly principled people, who think the British workman must be maintained whatever happens, and as a result they lose that business. Not only is the shipbuilding lost, but it does not follow that the steel is then made in this country. As a matter of fact, employment is lost in both ways. The assumption behind this proposal is that, under its operation, steel would be manufactured in this country. It does not follow at all, but in fact the contrary follows. I come back, however, to the point that it is not the business of the Government to concern themselves with sections. The business of the Government is to concern themselves with trade as a whole. Now that we are going to become a Protectionist country—and that is what seems to be happening—you will have all sorts of trades and sections coming forward and asking to be included in Bills of this kind. It is exceedingly desirable that there should be someone who will regard the proposals of these Committees set up by the Board of Trade, from the point of view not of a section but of the whole. I gather that the President of the Board of Trade accepts the Amendment in principle. If he desires, as I am sure he does, to make this Bill as little harmful as possible, I strongly urge him to come forward at a later stage with some proposal in the direction indicated by this Amendment.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Had the President of the Board of Trade really been in possession of the whole of the facts he would have seen that his speech proves the case for the Amendment. It is quite true at the present moment steel bars are coming in and are being sold to the roll sheet makers, and these roll sheet makers are just enabled to carry on by reason of the cheap bars which they are getting from Belgium and Northern France. That is well known to everybody acquainted with the trade. In Middles-
brough we are shipping large quantities of pig iron to Belgium and Northern France for the purpose of making these bars. If you stop the importation of the bars you will stop the exportation of the pig iron, and displace all the labour in connection with the latter.

Major HAMILTON: Can the hon. Member say when the last consignment was sent to Belgium?

Colonel WILLIAMS: It is going to-day. I heard it over the telephone this morning. I can state from my own personal experience that quite recently there were hundreds of tons for delivery and a large and profitable business is being done in that respect. Not only Middlesbrough, but other centres on the north-eastern coast are shipping this iron to Belgium for the manufacture of steel bars. It is used to mix with battlefield scrap and is coming back very cheaply in the form of sheet bars. It is enabling our industries here to get going again. If you put a duty on these bars, you are not going to start the steel works here. They cannot possibly start on that class of material. You are simply going to drive the trade into the hands of the Belgians, who will manufacture cheaply and ship to India. They are well able to do it, because to-day there is a large quantity of freight going from Germany to India shipped through Rotterdam. They are enabled to send their sheets to the Indian market very cheaply and very conveniently. I press upon the Government to consider this question further than they have considered it. The Committee may be interested to know that just this time last year I had a long interview with a gentleman who wanted to buy a large, quantity of iron over the enduing year, that of 1921–22, for making castings for two very large firms of motor manufacturers and makers of similar things in this country. The slump came early in the autumn of last year. All these orders were cancelled, and we lost the orders for pig-iron. That is what will happen if you put a tax on. The whole question needs more consideration. Any Committee that is dealing with this matter should have instructions to take the whole case into consideration, otherwise you will do infinite harm by interfering with trade about which you do not know anything.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I should like to speak as one of those unfortunate people who is interested in the making of these very billets. There is, I think, a great deal of talk about nothing. Out of all the iron and steel makers in England and Scotland I have not received a single letter from one who wishes to have a tariff put on steel billets—not a single one. Why, then, all this talk! This is not being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is being done by the Bill."] They will not do it without the steel makers ask them to do it, and it is, therefore, only waste of time to talk about it. When the Bill is passed the particular article to have the duty put on is going to be selected by a Committee of the Board of Trade. If such representations are made to the Board of Trade and they think it necessary to put on the duty, they will do it. Otherwise it will not be done. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right. There will be this reference to the Committee, as he says.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I do not believe anyone in the iron and steel industry will ask for a tariff.

Mr. DAVISON: They have asked for it.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN: They have not asked me.

Mr. J. DAVISON: I can prove what I say.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN: There is not much substance in this Amendment, and the Board of Trade might just as well accept it. After all is said and done, the only objection I can see to it is the way a judge in Court might interpret the words. If it is possible for him to interpret them as meaning that if one man was to be thrown out of employment by putting on a particular tariff, that, therefore, there should be a tariff, then it would bring the whole thing into ridicule.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is that if the Bill be passed as it stands it will be open to any tin-pot, twopenny firm making steel billets to make an application to the Board of Trade, although the industry as a whole,
as my hon. and gallant Friend says, has no intention whatever of putting in for this tariff. Anyone may apply. He may be an agent selling for a foreign firm which is manufacturing billets, and he may put in for the 33⅓ per cent. and prove his case, and upset the whole industry of this country doing so. I should like to give one further and possibly even more striking example of a concern already feeling the effects of this. I have had a communication only this week from the managing director of one of the steel firms in the country. It is a firm owning collieries and steel works, and making ingots, billets, sections, and plates. They also have a tremendous trade in corrugated galvanised iron. I am informed by this gentleman that all their departments are shut down, except the corrugated iron one, the market for which is largely colonial and foreign.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: South American and Indian.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes. South American and Indian, and foreign countries, generally speaking, not involved in the War. The market is open now, and it is the best market there is, but at the moment people will not buy goods, what with wages and coal coming down. Therefore they must leave their orders over for the moment until they see how things will turn out. It seems to me that until this firm can do as before, and be certain of getting their billets from time to time and as the necessity arises, they will not hold the corrugated market abroad. In default of this the whole place is shut down—the steel works, the rolling mills, and the corrugated iron works and galvanizing works—simply because the unfortunate manufacturer is not allowed to buy in the cheapest market while his competitors abroad may buy as they choose. The President of the Board of Trade suffers from the fact that he is not a lawyer, because I must say that every speech he makes on this Bill, whether it be on Second Beading or Amendments in Committee shows to me conclusively that so far as he is concerned—well, to say the least, he does not think much of the Bill. The speech to which we have just listened was to me a good example of faithful dealing; and the reason why he does not think much of the Bill is that he is not a lawyer. He has some knowledge of the industries of the country.
I have given the case of corrugated and galvanised iron. The same thing applies to one of our most profitable foreign trades, and that is the trade of enamelled iron hollow-ware. These are two points which I hope the Committee will bear in mind. First of all, that any little tin-pot firm can upset the whole industry unless this Amendment is passed. Such an agent as I have mentioned can go to the Committee and say, "If this duty is not put on the imported billets out will go ten or a hundred men in my employ engaged at present making these steel billets." Unless some provision is made such as is suggested in this Amendment whereby industry must be regarded as a whole instead of in little bits as the Bill lays down, we shall simply be in the hands of foreign competitors again in this matter as we have been in the past.

Mr. PERRING: So far as I can judge, the majority of the arguments that have been used this evening are entirely foreign to the question before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has suggested that some tin-pot firm could upset an industry and cause a lot of trouble. He well knows that by one of the Clauses of the Bill the whole question will be referred to a Committee and hon. Members who suggest that those who are engaged in an extensive way in an industry will not have a voice before the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Do hon. Members suggest that one tin-pot firm are going to have a paramount influence in an industry; that either the Government or the Committee will adopt something detrimental to the major portion of the industry?

Mr. HOPKINSON: If they come and prove that there is unemployment and that their men are affected!

Mr. PERRING: It has been suggested by other speakers that if such a policy was brought about it would ruin a large number of people. Are we to suppose that these self-same people will not come forward to put their case before the Committee if this matter is going to ruin them?

Mr. HOPKINSON: They would know nothing about it!

Mr. PERRING: Reference was made just now to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite said that they had made out
their case. The Mover of the Amendment—this was one of his strongest arguments—referred to trade and unemployment between the years 1905–15, and argued that as the import trade went up so unemployment went down. If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion it would be desirable to import everything, and then we should have no unemployment! Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that it would be well to go to the coal industry and tell the miners that if we import all our coal they would be in full work, or to go to the pianoforte makers and tell them that the more we import German pianos the busier they will be? I fail to see the logic of the argument at all. It has no bearing upon the subject. We have heard about steel. It has been suggested that by getting steel bars cheaply certain firms referred to would be able to export 75 per cent. of their wares. The hon. Gentleman who suggested that must know that we are engaged in Middlesbrough in the steel trade, and that we have very keen competitors in all branches of the steel trade in America, and even in Canada. Only yesterday I myself saw a quotation of steel-drawn wire at £30 a ton in New York. At Warrington to-day it is £55 per ton, and that with all the advantages which we have in regard to buying cheap bars from Belgian or cheap steel. Warrington has a much higher price, notwithstanding all these advantages, and cannot compete against Canada and America. It goes to show that there is something else that is influencing prices quite apart from what this Bill can or cannot do.
Some hon. Members seem to forget the difference in the price of coal in this country and in America, and also that an important factor is the amount of work turned out in these other countries, where they are producing cheap steel, as against what we turn out. I suggest that if hon. Members were to direct their minds more in that direction than in raising bogies about this question they would be doing far greater service, not only in the matter of unemployment, but to the community generally. It is the height of folly to raise arguments which are either foreign or misleading, and to suggest that something is going to happen which cannot happen. There is a large amount of unemployment from which we are suffering from to-day, notwithstanding
that you can buy your cheap billets or bars from Belgium at £6 10s., while the English price is £15—and the right hon. Gentleman told us that it is £30. We can be beaten in our own markets and the foreign markets. Reference has been made to Germany. She is not the only competitor we have to consider. There are other competitors even more vital to our industries than even Germany. The small amount of imports from Germany during the first three months of the year compared with other periods was also referred to, as if they were an important argument against this Bill. They are not of the least value whatever against this Bill. There are other countries sending in goods—

Mr. KILEY: They are outside the Bill.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. PERRING: These arguments are not worth the time spent on them. It would be well if hon. Members would direct their attention to root causes. Then we should not have anything to fear from this Bill because the result would be that the people would be employed and we should be in a better position to compete in the world market than to-day. Fears have been expressed about what this Bill is going to do. In a large degree these fears are ill-founded. What will this Bill do? It merely sets up machinery which can be put into use at a moment's notice under a certain set of circumstances. Those set of circumstances must arise in certain industries. Hon. Members have great fear about them if they do arise. There is the fear of unemployment due to dumping, and to collapsed exchanges; but I should have thought hon. Members would have been equally anxious to prevent the unemployment of the people. The arguments which have been used seem to me to be entirely false. One would assume that hon. Members opposite wish to see people unemployed because they argue that we should keep on importing and importing, and then the people would not be employed. It is so illogical that it does not seem necessary to answer such arguments.

Mr. FRANCE: The proceedings on this Bill are rapidly developing from comedy into farce. We have heard one hon. Member telling the House with great conviction that this Measure is going to be absolutely futile, that the causes of un-
employment has very little to do with collapsed exchanges, and that we should look for other reasons. We have also been told that the steel manufacturers of this country are not asking for any protection, or at any rate they have not asked the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Brigadier-General Hickman) to urge that the 33⅓ per cent. should be put on steel. Why should they? This Bill will be an Act, and it must become an Act, and no amount of argument will affect the vote which hon. Members opposite will give. The majority of this House will turn this Bill into an Act of Parliament.
The steel manufacturers know that there is going to be a duty of 33⅓ per cent. put into this Act which they may avail themselves of if they desire to do so. If they find that goods are coming here which come under the definition of dumping or that the collapsed exchanges are adversely affecting their trade and they can show that unemployment is affected thereby, they have a right to come and ask the Government to put on this 33⅓ per cent. Under these circumstances why should the steel manufacturers come to the hon. Member opposite who is in that particular trade and give the show away? They know it is possible to obtain the imposition of this duty if they can prove that in their trade there is any temporary unemployment caused. The President of the Board of Trade, with whom I sympathise very deeply, said just now that we wish to ridicule him, but we do not wish to do anything of the sort because our hearts bleed for him, and our sympathies are with him. The Minister of Health, to use the metaphor used by the President of the Board of Trade, is a trumpeting elephant sent out to bring in adherents. The President of the Board of Trade has been speaking in doleful accents like one who is seeking salvation and at last is finding out the truth. He speaks every time more in the direction of saying, "After all, this is not going to do very much good and it is not going to help very much, but something must be done as the position is very serious."
The hon. and gallant Member opposite said the steel manufacturers did not ask for this. What was the burden of the speech of the Minister of Health last night? Surely it is not toys or small trade that this great Measure is going to affect. The right hon. Gentleman said
this Bill was to save this country from ruin and save the great staple industries, and he referred to the steel trade. It does not influence me at all when the hon. and gallant Member opposite admits that he has not yet received any request for protection from his friends in the steel trade. The President of the Board of Trade said this was only a temporary Measure, and therefore it was not necessary to have this Amendment. I do ask him, however, if he would be good enough to consider what is the effect of rejecting an Amendment of this kind. What does he say? Those who support this Amendment say, "We know perfectly well that you can improve and help a particular trade by protection temporarily." Everyone knows that. Nobody is stupid enough to deny that you can bring temporary benefits to a trade by keeping some goods out which compete with that particular trade.
Let us look at this question from a wider point of view. Let us consider whether you are not going to do something which is going to benefit or injure in the broader sense the trade of the country. In order to prevent that injury we want you to take into consideration whether the articles you are keeping out might not by a process of further employment give more employment. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot have that Amendment. I think he must admit that he is prepared to help a particular trade and benefit that trade, and safeguard the employment, and by his own admission he says that must be done even if thousands are going to be unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches show that he is learning those elementary principles which are very difficult and sometimes very awkward, and I hope he will believe that we are not saying these things with a desire to obstruct, but with a general desire that this question should be looked upon more from a national point of view and not from the point of view of any particular trade. The steel trade apparently does not want this protection, and, if so, why have a Bill to protect the steel trade? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to see that this narrow aspect of one trade will not be taken in the provisions of this Bill when it finally emerges as an Act, and I hope that wider considerations will have play.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have been connected with the steel trade, the galvanis-
ing sheet trade, and the tin plate trade for the past 30 years, and if it were possible for the steel trade of this country to be wiped out of existence as a result of foreign competition, a thing I never believe can happen, my bread and butter is at stake, and, therefore, if anybody ought to support the Government I ought to do so. But I take a broader view of this question than the question of how this Bill affects the steel trade. I look at this matter from the standpoint of how it will affect the volume of employment in this country, and if we look at it from that standpoint I think we shall be able to examine this Measure and find out whether it is going to be an advantage to the country or not.
The President of the Board of Trade, in addressing the House recently, tried to compare the advantage that this Bill would give to the men who were producing the iron ore, the limestone, the men at the blast furnaces, the men at the steel furnaces, and so on. I want to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that if he will make a careful calculation of the average number of men employed in producing a ton of steel he will discover that the number is only about five men, while the average number of men employed to convert that ton of steel into galvanised sheets is about 20. I have had a circular to-day, and I have gone over the names in that circular, and it has astonished me to find in it the name of a gentleman who lives only three miles from my own constituency, and who, up to a short time ago, was one of the biggest Tariff Reformers in this country, and when he finds that raw steel is going to be taxed he signs this circular urging hon. Members to vote against the Key Industries Bill. He was one of the biggest Tariff Reformers I ever came across in South Wales.
The President of the Board of Trade, in comparing the number of men, forgot one important point. Assume for a moment that the steel worker is thrown out of employment as a result of this semi-raw steel being imported into this country. The President forgets that there is another steel worker employed in another steel works producing steel to make ship plates to build ships, which are required to bring material into this country and to ship out the finished articles produced with this semi-raw steel, and also another steel worker employed to
produce steel rails for the purpose of carrying the raw and finished article to the port. You will have a greater volume of employment under Free Trade and under the free exchange of commodities between nations, because it is to the advantage of people of all nations, and you will have a greater volume of employment as a result of importing this semi-raw steel into this country, and producing or manufacturing from it tin plates and galvanised sheets, than if you protected and prevented this steel coming into the country. Let me deal with the tin plate trade in South Wales. This is an export trade. I should think we export 80 per cent. of the tin plates that we produce in South Wales to foreign countries. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that we should get cheap steel in order to produce these tin plates. What is the result going to be if we are going to have a protective tariff?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I should like the hon. Member to connect his arguments with the Amendment before us. I am not saying that he is out of order, but we cannot have a general discussion on the Bill on this Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I was going to show-how tinplaters will be thrown out of employment as a result of steel being protected in this country. On an average you have about five men employed in producing a ton of steel, but you have 20 men employed in the tinplate trade converting that steel. These plates are exported and unless we can produce tin-plates cheaper and put them on to neutral markets the Americans are going to capture all the neutral markets. Therefore Protection is not good. If your tinplate trade goes down your foundries go down too, and instead of throwing one body of men out of employment you will throw lots of others also out of employment, and in so far as the foundries are concerned, in so far as the engineering trade and the transport trade are concerned, this is going to land us into no end of difficulty. I venture to assert the Government have not grasped the elementary position in so far as this question is concerned. This is my frank opinion. I have said plainly what my position in the steel trade is. If it goes down my bread and butter go as well. Inasmuch as when you shut the door of this Chamber in the face of Black Rod
you also close yourselves in, so that when you shut other people out in this matter of trade you equally close yourselves in and we become little Englanders straight off the reel.
I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade and to those who are trying to establish Protection in this country to try and understand international trade and economics. Let them see how it will affect them. Trade is an exchange of goods for goods. No one will deny that, and, least of all, will the President of the Board of Trade do so. For every pound's worth of foreign goods imported into this country a pound's worth of English goods is exported and consumed in other countries. If we adopt this insular policy of absolute Protection, we can have no external trade whatever, and we shall be shut out from every market in the world. Therefore, I say to the President of the Board of Trade and to those supporting this Bill, let us look at this question from a national standpoint. Let us view it as it will affect the volume of unemployment in this country. I want to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. We have steel manufacturers in this country to-day who are building steel works in Canada. If they are able to produce steel there more cheaply than is done by the steel workers in this country, are we going to prevent that steel coming into England? If not, what is the difference between English steel workers suffering as a result of Belgian steel being shut out and suffering by the shutting out of steel obtained from our Canadian steel works?

Mr. BALDWIN: There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anything, whether it be steel or any other article, coming into this country unless it is sold at a price below the cost of production.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I accept that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But I know something about this business, and I want to put this question to him. There are some combines in this country which own their collieries, their blast furnaces, and their steel works. There are other steel firms which possess steel works alone. The combines will be able to produce a ton of steel at 5s. or 7s. 6d. per ton cheaper than can be done by the firm which simply owns its steel works. If this firm with one steel works is going to the Board of Trade to make out a case that the foreigner is sending steel
here under the cost of production, how will the President of the Board of Trade deal with that question?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Board of Trade does not deal with it at all. It is referred to a Committee.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: When that Committee sits and allow these people to appear before them—people, I mean, whose men are going to be thrown out of employment as a result of cheap steel which has been imported—will they listen to a deputation from the representatives of the firms who own collieries, blast furnaces, and steel works, as well as from the people who complain that the steel is sent in under cost of production and also see a deputation of those who use the semi-raw steel? The more I go into this matter the more puzzled I am. I really cannot get at the bottom of it, but I do ask the President of the Board of Trade and those who support him to study both economics and international trade. If they do that I am sure the Bill will be dropped.

Sir H. MACKINDER: This is not in the ordinary sense a question of Free Trade or Protection. If the hon. Member who recommended the President of the Board of Trade to go in for the study of economics will refer, to his Adam Smith be will find that Adam Smith discusses the relative natural facilities of different countries to produce, and advocates that those countries should interchange the products which they have natural facilities to produce. I do not say that that exhausts the argument in this 20th Century, but that kind of argument is not involved here. We are dealing purely with a temporary condition of things, or a condition of things which may be temporary at any given time. The only goods involved are goods which are being sold below the cost of production, or which are specially reduced in price owing to the working of the present very abnormal condition of the exchange. I think the amendment now before the Committee raises very fairly the broad issue between the supporters of this Bill and the opponents of it. An hon. Member just now asked us to take a broad view of the question. The broad view that appears to me quite justified when we come to examine the meaning of this Amendment is that the Amendment takes the short view, and that the Bill takes
the long view. It is perfectly possible under present conditions that you may momentarily get greater employment at the cost of less employment a little later on.
I take it that Germany is not the only country involved in the working of this Bill. I will deal with her case because there at the present time you have a very artificial condition of affairs which cannot last for more than a certain number of years. The condition of things in Germany is this: that she is bound, as far as possible, to go on manufacturing those lines for which she has the raw material in her own country, because for any other raw material she must pay enormous prices owing to the state of the exchange. She has a population which is crowded on relatively sterile ground. They have a certain skill, and therefore you have a condition of things at the present moment in which that skill is cheap in Germany and will be applied to those particular lines of trade for which Germany happens to have the raw material within her own borders. Given these conditions it is perfectly possible that you will have a development of certain lines of trade. There is in a country of the magnitude of Germany a considerable home consumption, and you will have a temporary temptation to Germany to dump in those particular lines in order that she may produce that which she can produce, consuming her own raw material and consuming skill which at the present moment is superfluous among her own people. That is a temporary condition of things. But see what may happen here. Owing to the dumping there will be thrown out of employment here not merely certain labour, but certain skill and certain fixed capital in particular lines, for where you are throwing out of employment people engaged in particular lines you are definitely scrapping skill and fixed capital—plant, for instance—in those particular lines. The result is that Germany is speicialising in one particular kind of work and you are driven to specialise in another kind of work. That would not matter so very much if there were no war in the world, but it is because of the lessons of the War that we cannot afford this kind of specialising. If you merely wanted to get cheap guns it would have been cheaper perhaps to have allowed Krupp to grow into a world producer of guns.
Apart from the question of war and from the views of those who believe there will be no war in the future, I want to point to the purely commercial condition of affairs. You have a temporary condition of things in Germany which is forcing upon us also a temporary condition of things. You have specialising in Germany on those particular things in which she happens to have the raw materials cheap, because they are within her own borders, and you have, too, specialising here, to which we are driven, because Germany can dump her specialised goods here. That would not matter if the conditions were to be permanent and if there were no war. But they will not be permanent, and gradually the exchanges will right themselves and, accordingly, the condition of affairs will become such that Germany will be able to afford to buy raw materials from outside. Her whole policy has always been to equip herself as a complete economic unit, and the result will be that she will put out of action a certain amount of your skill and plant in those things which temporarily she was monopolising. Having done that, and having injured you to the extent that you will not be able to restore that skill and that plant, except after the lapse of a certain number of years, she will then return to the position she had before the War, and will attract to herself every trade which will enable her to work upon you a second time. The hon. Members in their Amendment and in their arguments seemed to forget the action of time. It is assumed that two nations are both producing that which they can produce best, and that they will interchange, but it is forgotten altogether that we are no longer in Adam Smith's condition. It takes years to equip a country in order to produce in any given line, and especially in skilled lines, and, if you allow, under temporary conditions, your plant and skill to be broken by dumping, you will not be able to restore your productive power under a certain number of years and without very great capital expenditure, which, temporarily, is not remunerative. Therefore Germany, or any other nation, will have acquired during those years a monopoly so far as you are concerned, and can, upon the wealth of that monopoly, proceed to erect, if she has a national policy and not a laissez faire
policy, the remaining trades which temporarily she has lost because of the conditions prevailing at the present time.
What we ask to-day is not that we shall go into the whole question of Protection and Free Trade, not that we shall attempt to do impossibilities—to grow sugar cane or other impossible things that are not wanted in this country. This Bill is simply to meet the temporary condition of things which exists to-day, and which is such that certain countries, and notably Germany, are in a highly artificial condition, impelling them to such a policy of dumping and the use of exchanges as will temporarily injure your trade and enable them to scrap your skill and your machinery, so that it will only be after a number of years that you will be able to restore the position. The Bill takes the longer view; this Amendment takes the shorter view. The Amendment asks you to judge of the immediate effect; the Bill says, "Do not be tempted to accept the gifts coming from the Greeks, but look a little further. You are being tempted to your own damage and loss, and not in the direction of greater employment. Do not allow dumping or exchanges to break your industrial organisation, which you will need a little later." That is the sole object of this Bill as far as I can see it, and it seems to me that the arguments against it do not really face the position. It seems to me that this Amendment does fairly raise the issue between the Bill and its opponents. It is a question of short sight and long sight. The long sight is on the side of the Bill, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not accept the Amendment.

Captain ELLIOT: It seems only fitting, as the last speaker is a Scottish Conservative Member, that the next speaker should be a Scottish Conservative also, especially as my views are in every way diametrically opposed to his. It seems very strange that he should make a long speech about an Amendment, and leave out of account any discussion of the Amendment whatsoever, except to make the extraordinary general statement that the Amendment took the short view and the Bill took the long view. The Amendment does take the short view—the shortest of all. It says, "Hear the other side." Is there anyone in the Committee who will say that the Protectionist case, which has been argued with such fluency, is incapable of meeting the argu-
ments against it? Is there anyone who says that it is so weak that only one side of the case must be presented to the Committee? Here is an Amendment which takes the common-sense, old-fashioned English view that if you hear one side of the case it is almost inevitaable—at any rate it has always been considered as only courteous, even if you have made up your mind beforehand—that you should hear the other side as well. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade is rather like that of the Irish lynch judge who, on hearing the case for the prosecution, said, "The case is now closed." "No," said the defending counsel, "I want to speak." "Oh," said the judge, "I never like to hear argument on the other side; it has a tendency to confuse the court."
That is the position in which we are just now. The President of the Board of Trade used the extraordinary argument that this is a difficult and complicated matter. Of course it is a difficult and complicated matter. At this very moment, at the other end of the Lobby, a case in point is being heard. The agricultural interest has for some years past had the advantage of an embargo on Canadian cattle coming into this country, and, as a matter of fact, I am in favour of that myself, but hon. and right hon. Members have raised a discussion as to whether it should be continued or not. Is there any vestige there of this revolutionary doctrine that only one side of the case should be heard? I myself, and all the agricultural Members, would be only too pleased if the Royal Commission were only to hear the evidence of those people who claim that employment in their industry is being or is likely to be seriously affected by the admission of Canadian cattle. If only those witnesses were to be called, we could make out a very strong case indeed. But the agricultural interests in this country have taken the revolutionary step, according to the Government, of actually admitting evidence on the other side, and at this moment the Commission is hearing evidence on both sides. Let us do away with that. Let us scrap it. Let us say, "It is a ridiculous idea to hear evidence on both sides; it makes it still more complicated." Let us ask the Commission only to hear arguments in favour of retaining the embargo, and none of the arguments
in favour of taking it off, and then none of us will have any doubt as to the issue.
The President of the Board of Trade, less zealous and ardent than his supporters, admitted that there was something to be said for this, and that, between now and the Report stage, he would do his best to see whether it was not possible that the other side of the case should have a chance of being put. His supporters will have none of that. They say, "Oh, no; we want the Act immediately. We want to go straight into this; we want something which can be set immediately in operation. It will be delayed if you hear evidence on the other side." And then the hon. Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder) actually said that this was taking the long view. Of course, it is taking the long view if you are to say that evidence against one's own views delays a verdict in one's favour. Of course it does, but that is a revolutionary doctrine to bring into the proceedings of the British Parliament. The speeches delivered and the oases made out to-day have grown, as the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. France) said, from comedy into farce, and there could be nothing more farcical than the latest suggestion. I do not think I should have been moved to make these few remarks if it had not been for the extraordinary pretensions, not so much of the President of the Board of Trade, as of his supporters. We have a perfectly definite Amendment here, which says that the evidence on the other side should be heard as well as the evidence on the Protectionist side. Surely that is a simple and common-sense Amendment. It is additionally necessary in that we are not merely discussing now the question of dumping, that is to say, selling here below the cost of production. That is a matter upon which we are all agreed. But we have here the question of selling at a lower price than can be attained in this country by reason of the depreciated exchange.
That brings in an entirely different set of circumstances. Depreciated exchanges, says the hon. Member for Camlachie, will right themselves—as if they were some mysterious thing that moved like the wind, blowing where it listeth. The mysterious thing about the exchanges is that they are a symbol, and not a thing in themselves. The exchanges
are like a thermometer. If the thermometer shows that the room is too hot, you do not take the thermometer outside and wait until it goes down; you open the window and cool the room. If it seems that the Germans, owing to the pressure of the indemnity and of recovering their position, are trying to export goods into this country, the only way in which the exchange will come right is by releasing those goods and letting them pass between the two countries. If you maintain a prohibition against German goods, you automatically retain the depreciated exchange. It is not then a temporary thing, but becomes permanent, and, instead of taking temporary measures against exceptional conditions arising out of the War, we shall have to adopt a new permanent commercial policy in this country. Many of us are quite willing to take special measures in favour of key industries, or against the warlike commercial operation known as dumping; but a general Protectionist policy in this country as a permanent feature of our industrial polity is not a thing that we are proposing to adopt if we are not compelled to do so, and we thoroughly resent the attempt that is being made to foist that system on the country and smuggle it through under, the pretext that this is merely a Bill—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is now getting very wide in his remarks, and I would ask him to keep more closely to the Amendment before the Committee.

Captain ELLIOT: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Hope, for calling me to order. I was getting rather wide of the point, but not, as hon. Members below the Gangway have said, merely through a desire to obstruct, although the new view seems to be that any evidence against the Bill is obstruction. On that general ground it is, perhaps, obstruction, but I simply want to say that here we have an Amendment asking that both sides should be allowed to place evidence before the Committee which is going to give its verdict. We have had a promise from the President of the Board of Trade that he would at least examine the possibility of this being done, and I beg of him, if he will not accept this Amendment—for which personally I intend to vote—that he will at least accept some Amend-
ment which will have the effect of allowing, not only one side, but both sides who are going to be affected by the decision of this Committee to have the honest, old-fashioned, English chance of pleading their case, and then, if you like, of taking the verdict at which the Committee arrive.

Mr. SEDDON: We have listened with interest to a facetious speech, which gave a good deal of amusement but threw very little light on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member started by gibing at the previous speaker for delivering a speech in which nothing was said about the Amendment; and then he began to build up a case which, as far as I can see, has no substance in it at all. I can see nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent any person coming before that Committee and giving evidence either for or against. I want to go back and support the hon. Member for Camlachie in the line that he took. We have been talking about steel, but there are other trades. Some of them are small and some are great, but I do not think you ought to take a mean advantage of those who are engaged in a small trade simply because it happens to be small. This Bill is the fulfilment of pledges, and those pledges were largely based upon the activities and the proposals of the party that now is bitterly opposing the Bill.

Mr. KILEY: We are talking about depreciation.

Mr. SEDDON: I can go on without the help of the hon. Member. I know where he is, and I know that we are diametrically opposed. This discussion has rambled from subject to subject, and I want to bring it back to the Amendment itself. The hon. Member for Camlachie has said that this Bill takes the long view, and the Amendment takes the short view. What is the position of some of the smaller trades? I want to deal with that of ceramic printing. It is a very small trade. Up to the outbreak of the War we allowed it to be a German trade almost entirely. When the necessity arose they were told, under definite pledges and promises emanating from the Paris economic resolutions, that if they put their capital into the industry when the War was over they would not suffer the same penalties that were inflicted upon them before the War took place. Thousands and thousands of capital have
been put into that form of printing. Owing to the depleted exchanges Germany is flooding the markets. That capital is practically gone. If you do not have this protection the people who put their money into that industry will have been misled, not only by this House, but by the promises that were made, and it will be a breach of faith and honesty to those who have put their capital in it. So far as this Amendment is concerned, as I read it the discussion has had nothing to do with the rights of either side. Either of those who are for or against have an opportunity of going to this Committee if it is set up, and any discussion on this Amendment is waste of time.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The Mover of the Amendment used military metaphors and compared the Minister of Health with Big Bertha. Following that line, he himself, and others on his side, have been putting up a smoke screen, because they have done all they possibly could to obscure the real issues raised by this Amendment. Speech after speech has been made to meet the specific case of steel billets, apparently under the impression that the Bill had some reference to steel billets. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that under this Clause any trader need only show that in his business some of his employés would be thrown out of employment and he would then get protection. It would not be at all a bad thing if hon. Members before making speeches of this type in support of Amendments would read the Clause they are trying to amend, and try to understand what their own Amendments amount to. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) told us that the effect of defeating the Amendment would be to shut out all evidence against the application before the Committee. That is an entire misreading of what it effects. When the Committee meets there is nothing in the Bill to prevent witnesses giving their evidence, either for or against the application. Some hon. Members have really forgotten that the House has already sanctioned a considerable portion of Clause 2. It has already authorised the Board of Trade to set up a committee to deal with these applications, and this Sub-section really deals with what is the best method to carry out the provisions which are set forth in Sub-section (1).
It must be obvious to everyone that if we really want to get this committee doing
its work well, we want its members to be detached from all political pre-dispositions, and from all theoretical predispositions, men who will simply address themselves to the specific issues which are included in the reference which is given to them. The reference is stated already in Sub-section (1). The issue they have to decide is whether these goods are sold at prices below the cost of production, or at prices which, by reason of the depreciation in values, are likely to cause unemployment in the particular industry. Those are broad issues of fact, and if you are going to get this Committee doing good work it has to address itself surely to facts and to facts alone. It is no good dealing with large questions of political or economic theory. We do not want to have the Committee disturbed in its adjudication of what is the only object of its coming into being, namely, a decision as to whether or not those conditions exist.
We have had appeal after appeal that the Committee must look to broad principles, that it must take the long view, and that it has to look at the matter as widely as possible, and no doubt hon. Members who have spoken in support of it hope to see this Committee not dealing with the specific issues which are referred to it, but go altogether outside the orbit of the reference which is made to them and to deal instead with these large questions of political economy, to bandy quotas lions from learned writers or orators on political economy from Adam Smith to John Bright and from Cobden to the hon. Member for Whitechapel, and to hear theoretical economists who have always been interested in persuading the country that it is a. good thing to have foreign imports to the greatest possible extent. I contend that discussions of that sort, discussions of broad issues, are discussions for the House. They are not discussions for this Committee at all. The reference to the Committee is already framed, and it is ridiculous to expect the Committee to go outside the orbit of the reference. In the reference there is not a word about these potential results of the measures which are advocated by the Committee, and therefore it is absurd to expect them to go into matters altogether alien to the reference. The object of the Committee is to act as a judicial body on specific facts. It is not its object to act as a
debating society. When the results of the Committee's deliberations are submitted to Parliament, Parliament can deal with these larger questions of political and economic speculation. That is not the job of any Committee. It is only common sense that the Committee should stick to its job, which is the adjudication on certain actual phenomena, and not speculation as to future remote and hypothetic consequences.

Captain W. BENN: I quite understand why the President of the Board of Trade does not answer. He wants a limited time for consideration. But really the Government suffers from its supporters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst) has given the whole case away, and he correctly interprets the Subsection. It says, "by reason thereof employment," etc. That is to say, the man who has a locus standi before the Committee is the man who alleges that employment in his particular industry is suffering. No one else has any locus standi at all. The President of the Board of Trade does not attempt to deny it. All he says is, "Once you start on these large questions of general employment it is beyond the grasp of any man." That is what we believe. The less the Board of Trade attempt to grasp it, the better. The more they leave it to people who have made it their life study, the better. Trade is not a matter which can be controlled by young gentlemen in Whitehall. It is a thing that is built up in a complicated way by one man specialising in searching for some produce over the world and another specialising in how to sell it, and they do not want a young gentleman to go and poke his ringer into the wheels of industry and decide whether he should put an embargo on tungsten and before lunch decide whether he will put a swinging duty on paper. What is wanted is freedom for these wheels to revolve without interference from Government Departments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the only people who can go before the Committee are people whose trade is affected.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: No, I did not say that at all. I said those people will go before the Committee and any persons who wish to raise objections can go too.

Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman expressly ruled out what he
called the speculative question. Let me take a simple case that I know well. Take paper. A man comes before the Committee and says, "My paper mills are being affected by the import of foreign paper." What about the publisher? He cannot come before the Committee. His employment is not being affected by the import of cheap paper. It is being helped. Consequently you will have a paper manufacturer applying for a duty on his article regardless of the disastrous effect on the newspapers of the country. The President of the Board of Trade dealt in a very tentative and apologetic way with the Bill. His supporters do not do that. They go in for the whole hog, and they want little interests to bring pressure on a small committee in the hope of getting their interest protected by a tariff. That is the thing we object to. That is the thing that really renders this Amendment one of the most important we have discussed and one which certainly the Government ought to accept.

Mr. KILEY: I am not interested in steel bars, but I have a little interest in a town known as Northampton, which is noted for the manufacture of boots. In order to manufacture the best boots in the world they require patent leather. Patent leather is best obtainable from a country other than our country. We are already trying to make that patent leather in this country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask you, Sir, whether this discussion is in order?

The CHAIRMAN: It is necessary to allow a certain exordium to an hon. Member. The hon. Member will doubtless connect his exordium with his argument.

Mr. KILEY: I was leading up to the fact that we are trying to make that patent leather to enable the bootmakers to keep their people in employment. We have done our best to prevent that being done because, under the key industries part of the Bill, we have prevented the importation of the material to make that leather to the best advantage. That is the reason the hon. Member (Mr. Samuel) told the Committee that he was unable, perhaps for the first time, to support the Government, and he would not vote against them and so would not vote at all. The Committee will realise the position.
The manufacturers of Northampton were bound to provide the materials to keep their bootmakers employed. If they paid this 33⅓ per cent., which the patent leather makers would have to pay, it places them at a disadvantage in first of all having to get inferior leather and then they have to pay a very much bigger price than they would otherwise pay, and it does not place them in a position to retain their overseas trade. With regard to the Committee, I have served on a Board of Trade Committee and I know the procedure. The President is urged to prohibit or restrict imports. On one occasion a proposal was brought to us that a certain commodity, which had been imported into this country at 9s. 3d., could not be made here for less than 15s. The Committee there and then passed a recommendation to the President that he was not to allow any more of that commodity to come in. Those who are concerned have no opportunity of coming

before the Committee. We on the Committee have no opportunity of testing the accuracy or otherwise of the statements. It is absolutely essential that if the Act is desired to be properly administered, precautions should be taken to see that all points of view are considered. If that is not done there will be very serious disadvantages accruing to all concerned, and although it may tend to create some employment for those who are trying to make this patent leather—

It being Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 222.

Division No. 211.]
AYES.
[7.2 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Halls, Walter
O'Grady, James


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hayday, Arthur
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Evan
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rae, H. Norman


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cairns, John
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, B. G.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnstone, Joseph
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Wallace, J.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Gillis, William
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Mosley, Oswald
Wintringham, Thomas


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Borwick, Major G. O.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barlow, Sir Montague
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Atkey, A. R.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brown, Major D. C.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Carr, W. Theodore


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Casey, T. W.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G
Reid, D. D.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hurd, Percy A.
Remnant, Sir James


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Renwick, Sir George


Coats, Sir Stuart
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)'


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jesson, C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Dean, Commander P. T.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Seager, Sir William


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Seddon, J. A.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Simm, M. T.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lindsay, William Arthur
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lloyd, George Butler
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Elveden, Viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stanton, Charles Butt


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Steel, Major S. Strang


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lynn, R. J.
Stevens, Marshall


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Stewart, Gershom


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Forestier-Walker, L.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Forrest, Walter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Taylor, J.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Ganzoni, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gardner, Ernest
Manville, Edward
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Tickler, Thomas George


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mitchell, William Lane
Townley, Maximilian G.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Tryon, Major George Clement


Green, Albert (Derby)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Morrison, Hugh
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Winterton, Earl


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Parker, James
Wise, Frederick


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pearce, Sir William
Wolmer, Viscount


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Woolcock, William James U.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Perring, William George
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hood, Joseph
Pratt, John William
Younger, Sir George


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)
Prescott, Major W. H.



Hopkins, John W. W.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Purchase, H. G.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.

The Chairman then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment proposed by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment proposed: Leave out Subsection (3), and insert instead thereof:
(3) If at the time when it is proposed to make any such orders the Commons House of Parliament is sitting or is separated by such an adjournment or prorogation as will expire within one month, the drafts of the
proposed orders shall be laid before that House and the orders shall not be made unless and until a resolution is passed by that House approving of the drafts either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution, and upon such approval being given the orders may be made in the form in which the drafts have been approved.
In any other case an order may be made forthwith, but all orders so made shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after its next meeting, and shall not continue in force for more than one month after such meeting unless a resolution is passed by that House declaring that the orders shall continue in force, either without modification or subject to such
modifications as may be specified in the resolution; and, if any modifications are so made as respects any order, the order shall thenceforth nave effect subject to such modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Any order approved or continued under this Sub-section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 78.

CLAUSE 3.—(Charge of Customs duties on goods to which Part II applies.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied and paid on goods of any class or description in respect of which an order has been made under this Part of this Act, if manufactured in any of the countries specified in the order, on the importation thereof into the United Kingdom, in addition to any other duties of customs chargeable thereon, duties of customs equal to one-third of the value of the goods.

(2) Where goods are manufactured partly in one country and partly in another, or undergo different processes in different countries, and any one or more of those countries are countries in relation to which an order applying to the goods in question has been made under this Part of this Act, the goods shall be liable to duty under this Part of this Act unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that fifty per cent. or more of the value of the goods at the time of export to the United Kingdom is attributable to processes of manufacture undergone since the goods last left any country in relation to which such an order has been made.

(3) An order under this Part of this Act may extend to goods brought back into the United Kingdom after having been exported therefrom for the purpose of undergoing any process out of the United Kingdom, and in such case the goods shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to have been manufactured in the country in which they have undergone such process, but the
importer shall, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of the value of the goods free on board at the time of such exportation, and of the identity thereof, and that no drawback has been allowed thereon on the exportation thereof, be entitled to be repaid by the Commissioners such proportion of the duty paid under this Part of this Act on the goods so brought back after having undergone such process as aforesaid as represents the duty on the value of the goods before exportation.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in addition to any other duties of Customs chargeable thereon."
This Amendment stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Thorn-bury (Mr. Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, W. (Mr. C. White), and I have been asked to move it. The object is to prevent cumulative duties being levied upon any articles which come under this Bill. As the question was discussed last night by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn), I will not debate it further.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 70.

Division No. 212.]
AYES.
[7.12 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral, Thomas B. S.
Gardner, Ernest
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gilbert, James Daniel
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Neat, Arthur


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Green, Albert (Derby)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Atkey, A. R.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gretton, Colonel John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Parker, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Pearce, Sir William


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Perring, William George


Bellairs, Commander Carlvon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pratt, John William


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Purchase, H. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Reid, D. D


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Renwick, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hood, Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,w.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hopkins, John W. W
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carr, W. Theodore
Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Casey, T. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Seager, Sir William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Seddon, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Simm, M. T.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jesson, C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanton, Charles Butt


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stewart, Gershom


Cope, Major William
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lewis. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sutherland, Sir William


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd. George Butler
Taylor, J.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tickler, Thomas George


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Townley, Maximilian G.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lynn, R. J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Elveden, Viscount
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Falcon, Captain Michael
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Manville, Edward
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, William Lane
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Winterton, Earl
Woolcock, William James U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wise, Frederick
Worsfold, T. Cato
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Wolmer, Viscount
Young, E. H. (Norwich)
McCurdy.


Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)



Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Younger, Sir George



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Hayward, Evan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hinds, John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Cairns, John
Johnstone, Joseph
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Wallace, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Gillis, William
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wintringham, Thomas


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers. Thomas
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
O'Connor, Thomas P.



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Halls, Walter
Rae, H. Norman
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.




Hogge.


Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 213.]
AYES.
[7.23 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Parker, James


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pearce, Sir William


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atkey, A. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, William George


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pratt, John William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Purchase, H. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Reid, D. D.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Renwick, Sir George


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkins, John W. W.
Seager, Sir William


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Seddon, J. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G
Simm, M. T.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Carr, W. Theodore
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Casey, T. W.
Jesson, C.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stewart. Gershom


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sturrock, J. Leng


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sutherland, Sir William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Taylor, J.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lloyd, George Butler
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cope, Major William
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Tickler, Thomas George


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Townley, Maximilian G.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lynn, R. J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dean, Commander P. T.
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Edgar, Clifford B.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Manville, Edward
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mitchell, William Lane
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred Moritz
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Morden, Col. W Grant
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Woolcock, William James U.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, Hugh
Worsfold, T. Cato


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gardner, Ernest
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Younger, Sir George


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur



Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, Albert (Derby)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wilson.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kiley, James Daniel


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Halls, Walter
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Mills, John Edmund


Briant, Frank
Hayward, Evan
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Cairns, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Mosley, Oswald


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hinds, John
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Myers, Thomas


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hogge, James Myles
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Holmes, J. Stanley
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Irving, Dan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Royce, William Stapleton


Galbraith, Samuel
Johnstone, Joseph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillis, William
Kennedy, Thomas
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Glanville, Harold James
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spoor, B. G.




Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Swan, J. E.
Wignall, James



Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Colonel Penry Williams and Major


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wintringham, Thomas
Barnes.


Waterson, A. E.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "one-third" and to insert instead thereof the word "one-tenth."
The winning personality of the President of the Board of Trade assisted the Government in a very awkward Amendment earlier in the afternoon, though even the supporters of the Government found great difficulty in supporting it in the Debate. This House of Commons is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his anxiety not to disturb trade conditions. Throughout our Debates he has shown readiness to listen to every argument addressed from this side, though up to this moment we have not succeeded in making any improvement in the Bill. We can appeal then to the Government to endeavour to conserve the trade interests of this country by avoiding any sudden levying of duty. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, with his business experience, will agree that if goods are imported in future and are forced to pay a duty of one-third it will upset trade conditions throughout the country. We think a 10 per cent. duty sufficient. If it is proved that 10 per cent. does not secure the object which they have in view, the Government can come at short notice and ask the House to give them increased power. Two or three times during the last few months the Government have asked the House to change legislation which was passed a short time ago.
The Government propose a uniform remedy in this matter. Whether there is a heavily depreciated exchange as in Russia, Poland and Austria, or a much less depreciated exchange as in Belgium and France, the idea in the mind of the Government is to apply a uniform remedy to every one of these varying trade conditions. What is sufficient for one case is insufficient for another. Therefore I appeal to the Government to take a more moderate view and to adopt the view which Tariff Reformers in the old days outlined to this country. We are aware that their proposals were rejected at three general elections after they were submitted to the country, and that at recent bye-elections every candidate, whether a supporter of the Government
or not, was opposed to this Bill. These are strong reasons why the Government should hasten slowly in this matter. Let them adopt 10 per cent. to start with. If the country approves of the policy, and we realise the value of protective duties and high prices in creating employment, then the Government can come forward with a good case and ask the House of Commons to increase these duties.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Last year an international conference under the auspices of the Supreme Council, and representing 31 nations, met at Brussels. The three British representatives were very distinguished exponents of economics and finance. The whole of the Allied and associated Powers and several neutral countries were represented by gentlemen of very nearly the same calibre. They discussed the whole question of European trade, exchange, etc., and recommended unanimously that every barrier to the restoration of trade should be swept away. They further said that the new States created under the Peace Treaty should immediately withdraw all restrictions on trade.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know how that can be considered relevant to the question of whether the Committee should decide on a duty of one-third or one-tenth.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we have got to take poison we should try to take as little as possible. This Bill will not be an encouragement to these new States. How the proposals to levy a duty of one-third the value of the goods can be reconciled with the Government's own policy—because the Supreme Council approved and therefore the British Government were committed to the recommendations of this Conference—I do not know. If they do need any assistance in the way of protection a duty of one-tenth would be high enough.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The President of the Board of Trade in resisting these Amendments admitted that this legislation was an experiment so far as interference with English trade was concerned. That is all the more reason when break-
ing new ground for treading carefully and not going more quickly than is necessary. Therefore I join in the appeal, as it is such an innovation affecting such large trade interests, to move cautiously and consider whether a duty of one-tenth would not be preferable to a duty of one-third. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) gave a striking illustration of the effect which this duty would have on a very large industry in this country, the industry of sheet bars, which are now coming into the country for rolling out into corrugated sheets and galvanised sheets and are at present quoted here at £6 10s. a ton as compared with £13, the present price of the English manufacture. Yet even at the price of £6 10s. it gives the sheet roller all he can do to compete in the world markets. Our trade is largely an export trade to India, the Colonies, America and elsewhere, and to put on a duty of one-third making the price £8 13s. 4d. would make it impossible for our sheet rollers, manufacturers of half finished products, to compete in the world markets and that trade would go. If the duty were one-tenth making the price £13 3s. it might yet leave a margin which would make it possible to carry on this large industry.
Even if this proposed duty were imposed it would not benefit the steel producers of this country, because the orders for these bars will not go to the English manufacturers of steel, as it is impossible for the sheet manufacturer to pay £13 and compete in the world market. It simply means that you prevent the sheet works of this country carrying on at all, and you will do no good to the manufacturer of steel in this country. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of the whole country and of trade to consider whether it is wise to put on this prohibitive duty which will kill this particular trade. It is not a question of raising the price of these bars if they come in, by raising the price of the whole material that is used by manufacturers in this country. Take a country which has a depreciated exchange. It gets the benefit of 33⅓ per cent. Take, then, another country which sends this material which may not have a depreciated exchange at all, and though it does not get the duty on its goods the price of the imported material from the competing country having been raised to this extent the one importer naturally takes the
advantage which is given to the other importer and his price is raised accordingly.
You raise the whole cost to the manufacturer in this country and make it prohibitive. You are dealing with a trade which has an import of over 1,000,000 tons of steel and iron, half finished products in one form or another, and affects values equivalent to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 at least. You are going to shut that up by this Bill. Proceed cautiously and begin with the duty of one-tenth without endangering the trade which has been built up during the last 20 or 30 years, which employs hundreds of thousands of men, and depends entirely on the cheap products of the country. Not that we get the whole of the material used in our mills from the Continent, but the fact that we have open markets keeps the price of steel bars in this country down to a level which enables our manufacturers to compete in the world market. The instance which I have given shows that the danger to trade involved in this provision of the Bill is so tremendous that the President of the Board of Trade might accept this Amendment, so that at any rate as little harm as possible may be done.

Sir R. COOPER: The two last speakers have used an argument which we heard a good many times yesterday, and they referred to this 33⅓ per cent. duty, not only as being a very high duty, but as a new experiment in the fiscal principles of this country. That is absolutely incorrect, because at this present time, and for the last two years at least, a duty of 33⅓ per cent. has been imposed on all motor spare parts and accessories coming into the country. There are many hundreds of firms engaged in this trade and concerned with goods that are imported from France and Germany, but mainly from the United States, and I am personally connected with one firm that imports these parts, and in this particular firm last year over £30,000 was paid to the Treasury in duties alone on the imported goods. It is true that this 33⅓ per cent. duty which is referred to as being so very high has not had the effect of keeping out the American goods, but the Treasury has got the £30,000 from one comparatively small firm. It is open to any hon. Member to get information from British firms who are producing these goods in this country as to the value to them of the 33⅓ per
cent. duty and as to what would have been the value of a 10 per cent. duty such as is advocated in this Amendment. In the case I have instanced hon. Members can ascertain as an absolute fact what has really been the effect on the prices in this country. I am speaking of something of which I have a considerable knowledge, and I can give the Committee my personal assurance that in many of these parts the price would not have been any lower if this duty had not been imposed.
What is really happening is that these importing firms are now finding it exceedingly difficult to continue competing, because the English manufacturers are making at prices that are not so high as to make the full difference of the 33⅓ per cent., and though I cannot profess to know the secrets of the British competing firms, I know they have been well employed, whilst most other firms this last winter have been partly closed or in some cases shut down altogether. I am quite certain that they would give unanimous evidence to any hon. Member that the effect in this particular case of the 33⅓ per cent. duty has been of the greatest benefit to the English trade and to all those employed in their factories. There is an obvious answer to what I am saying, namely, that this is a luxury article. I admit that, but the principle is there, and hon. Members, many of whom do desire to learn the real truth of the operation of the principles involved in this Bill, have here an established fact upon which they can get information, which would be of great guidance to them as to whether the proposals of the Government in this Bill are good or bad. I can only say from my own experience and from actual knowledge that they have been exceedingly good for capital, for the employer, and for the working people in those industries connected with motor cars and motor-car accessories, and I cannot conceive why they should be bad for every other industry.

Captain ELLIOT: If we are seeking precedents, there are plenty of others. The main objection that most of us have to these proposals is that the Government wave the magic wand of 33⅓ per cent. over imports coming from foreign countries whether the exchange has depreciated to an enormous degree or whether it has depreciated to a much less
extent. It is very difficult to conceive of anybody who should say that the duty shall be 33⅓ per cent. on cotton goods coming from Lodz, in Poland, where the mark is 2,600 to the £, and from Germany, where it is only about a tenth of that. There is another country which has stumbled into this blind alley and actually applied these duties, and that is Spain. Spain has been up against the depreciated exchanges, and on the 4th June, Spain applied the principle of differentiating against countries with depreciated exchanges; but though we are inclined to run down the Spaniards for their short-sighted views, I think we must admit that they have adopted the common-sense business attitude of going through the countries with depreciated exchanges and classifying them. Consequently you find that dynamos, for instance, pay 150 pesetas a kilogram. "The American and British exchange," they say, "has not depreciated, and we will charge them 150 pesetas; the French and Belgian exchange is fairly depreciated, and we will charge them 192 pesetas; the German exchange is extremely depreciated, and we will charge them 244.5 pesetas." There is some logic about that. It may be a wrong-headed proposal, but at any rate it is a wrong-headed proposal seriously applied and honestly gone into, and it will probably show the fallacy much sooner; but when we find a proposal like this that is in the Bill, and when we know that the depreciated exchanges go over such a wide gap, it raises in our minds the suggestion that this is but another piece of camouflage legislation and that it is not intended to work.
We can imagine the Government saying, "Let there be a duty, and that will please some people, and we will make it 33⅓ per cent., because it is a nice round figure and involves a certain amount of vulgar fractions that make it difficult to calculate." The proposal comes, surely, from the illogical mixing up of dumping and depreciated exchanges. Part I of the Bill has to do with key industries, and we will pass that by. Part II mixes up the two problems of dumping, which is a definite, commercial attack on a definite range of products, carried out with the definite object of crushing out an industry, and of depreciated exchanges, which is a very much wider and more complicated problem and which none of the speakers
from the Government Bench have explained in any way to the satisfaction of the Committee. Simply to say that certain goods are coming in cheaper owing to depreciated exchanges, and not to inquire how much the exchange has depreciated or what are the causes of depreciation, to wave the magic wand and say, "Let there be a duty of 33⅓ per cent.," and then to proceed to argue that that will have the effect in all cases of remedying this extraordinary phenomenon which nobody understands, is straining our credulity a great deal too far. I think the 10 per cent. is impossibly low; the 33⅓ per cent. in many cases may be impossibly high—certainly it is far more in some cases than the amount by which the exchange has depreciated—and in many cases 33⅓ per cent., for a depreciated exchange like the Polish exchange, which has depreciated so far that the nominal value of a shilling is now a farthing, is ridiculous. The thing has gone up 48 times, and we put on a duty of one-third to counteract it. How can such a proposal as that be justified? I beg the Government to explain why the same duty will apply to all classes of depreciated goods, whether they have depreciated a quarter or 48 times, as in the case of Poland, and if they cannot, then let us apply this duty solely to dumped goods and leave the whole problem of depreciated exchanges to be dealt with in a separate Bill, under different conditions, when we can have this extremely difficult problem properly thrashed out.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: For the very excellent reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot) has just given for voting for the Amendment, I shall vote against it. He is quite right in saying that a 33⅓ per cent. duty will not do very much good in respect of goods coming from a country like Poland. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) on my right and my hon. Friend who represents the National party (Sir R. Cooper) talked about necessities like iron and steel goods, or motor cars, which are quasi-necessities, and they have taken the line of argument that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would raise the cost to the manufacturer in a trade depending on cheap products from the Continent. That may be all very well with regard to necessities, but let us see if there are not other trades
which are not necessities, but purely luxuries, but which are still importing trades. There occurs to me the silk trade, which is not unimportant by any means. We imported last year £40,000,000 worth of manufactured silk, and of that £12,000,000 worth came from four or five countries like France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and Austria, which have depreciated exchanges. We had £40,000,000 worth of goods coming in which are luxuries. It does not matter whether you put a 100 or a 1,000 per cent. on those goods, it will not put up the-price of living to a poor man, because they are pure luxuries, and as far as they give employment to working people, so much the better. If people want luxuries, let them pay whatever they cost and let them be made here. I do not see what good it is proposing to put 10 per cent. rather than 33⅓ per cent. on luxury trades such as silk.
8.0 P.M.
During the War we induced people to put up factories in order to turn out the silk goods which hitherto had been imported, and if you do not now put on a good stiff duty on silk fabrics you, throw silk manufacturing people out of work. The duty on a luxury does not have the effect that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said it would have, namely, of raising the cost to the manufacturer whose trade depends upon cheap production. Therefore I say if any persons want silk goods she or he first must make up their mind whether to indulge a fancy which calls for a large price. It will not put up the price of living to the poor of this country whatever the duty is, nor damage a subsidiary trade. A 10 per cent. duty is no good on a manufactured imported product like silk, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) that 33⅓ per cent. will not go far to help us, but as between the two I am bound to vote for 33⅓ per cent. rather than 10 per cent. What good is 33⅓ per cent to a trade, with depreciated exchanges, of £12,000,000 worth of imported manufactured silk? We will take Germany before the War. There wages were, let us say, £2 or 40 marks a week for making silk goods. The same volume of silk fabric can be made in a week in England as in Germany. In England the worker will get £4 or £5, and in Germany he will get six times what he got before the War. He got 40
marks before the War; now he will get 240 marks. Wages in Germany have gone up six-fold; the mark has gone down 14-fold against sterling. He gets 240 marks now, instead of 40 marks, for the same labour. For these 240 marks the German manufacturer will have produced the same quantity of silk as was produced in this country in the same period for £4 or £5. The foreign manufacturer can bring this same quantity of silk here, and he will be perfectly well paid if he gets £2 for it, which means to say 550 marks in return for 240 marks labour cost. Therefore he can compete over and over again in face of so small a duty as 33⅓ per cent. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Captain Elliot) that 33⅓ per cent. is not much good in such a case, but for that reason I am not going to vote for 10 per cent. An hon. Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says, What about raw silk bought by Germany? Raw silk is produced in Italy, Hungary, and in Greece and the Levant, and Turkey in Asia, and, I think, in the southern part of Bulgaria. The exchange of Germany as against the exchange of the bankrupt Near East is as much in Germany's favour as the sterling value of our sovereign is against the mark in Germany. The consequence is Germany or Italy do not feel the depreciation of the mark and, lira in buying raw silk material in South-Eastern Europe and Asia Minor. I am going to vote for 33⅓ per cent. In these times I only wish it was 133⅓ per cent., so far as it affects luxuries, and, indeed, even prohibition import of manufactured luxuries like manufactured silk is sound on economic lines, let alone 33⅓ per cent.

Mr. MOSLEY: My hon. Friend who has just sat down is, at any rate, genuine in his intentions. With that sort of speech we know where we are. I am afraid I am one of those who join with the hon. Member for Lanark in deploring these attempts at camouflage rather more than the genuine enthusiast in a cause which he has at heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark adduced certain considerations which have never been answered by the Government, either in the course of the Second Reading discussion or in the course of the discussion in Committee. He put to
the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what seems to me to be a very pertinent question. How does he hope to apply this 33⅓ per cent. duty equally to all the conditions with which we are confronted to-day? We find exchanges all over the world with widely varying differences of depreciation, and we find also that these exchanges affect the internal industries of the country concerned in very varying degrees. The basis of the whole difficulty seems to be that the bounty which the industries of countries possessing a depreciated exchange secure on exports depends entirely on whether or not the raw materials component in those articles are indigenous in the country or are purchased externally. Obviously, if raw materials are purchased externally, the adverse exchange operates against the country concerned, and, in fact, constitutes a prohibitive duty when she comes to export the manufactured goods. It is only in cases where all the raw materials are indigenous in the country concerned that the exchange operates as a bounty in her favour. But even then you cannot quite take it as my hon. Friend took it as a mere question of the extent of depreciation. Although it has failed to work in this particular instance, owing to the utter collapse of the world credit system, we must consider the ancient economic law that internal prices rise in exact proportion to the external depreciation in the value of a country's currency. I agree it has not quite worked out in that way. If it had, the whole hypothesis of this Bill would fall to the ground. I was only trying to point out in passing that you cannot merely take the extent of the depreciation of a country's exchange and work on that, but, at the same time, it is evident that in cases where the raw materials are indigenous an immense bounty is afforded to the exporting countries, a bounty to correct which a duty of 500 or 600 per cent. would be required in the case of countries like Poland or Austria. In the case of such industries possessing indigenous raw materials, it is quite evident that 33⅓ per cent. duty is entirely farcical and must be utterly ineffective.
The President of the Board of Trade, in the small hours of one of our previous discussions, said, "If this part of the Bill does not do much good, it does not do very much harm." I welcome that as
some slight recompense for some of the dangers with which we are threatened by this Measure. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend in the course of today's discussion scarcely could contain his own internal merriment at his advocacy of a proposal which he knows to be an absurdity. Of course, this Measure in the case of countries having collapsed exchanges and indigenous raw materials is an utter farce, a mere piece of camouflage, to console certain persons who were grumbling against conditions which arise from mistaken policy. But in the case of other industries which have to purchase their raw materials outside their own borders, it is quite evident that it is already difficult for those industries in foreign countries to compete successfully in their exports to this country, and in those cases a 33⅓ per cent. duty will act presumably as an entirely prohibitive tariff, and undermine any chance of their competition. In the case of such goods coming into this country it is quite evident that a 10 per cent. duty would be far fairer than a 33⅓ per cent duty. In fact, in some cases a 10 per cent. duty is no more fertile than a 33⅓ per cent. duty, and in the other cases which I have adumbrated the 10 per cent. duty would be far fairer than the 33⅓ per cent. duty, although, in fact, in these cases no duties are necessary at all, for the goods are virtually prohibited from entering into this country at the present time. Therefore, under all these considerations, it seems to me that this Amendment is more than justifiable.

Major HAMILTON: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member who has just sat down. He started off by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on his great honesty, and he accused the Government and those who support this Bill of camouflage. Well, he is a good judge of both. He entered this House, as I understand it, as a Conservative Member of the Coalition Government and as a supporter of the Government in the actual proposition which this Bill tries to carry out. The hon. Member has now joined the Wee Frees. He has never consulted his constituents, but he comes here and accuses us of camouflage and dishonesty when we are endeavouring to do our level best to carry into law the promises which he and we made at the last General Election. What does he say?
He says that this Amendment to reduce the 33⅓ per cent. duty to 10 per cent. is in some cases ludicrous because 334 per cent. would do no good, and in other cases 10 per cent. would do less harm. What is really the point? If only the hon. Member would read the Bill which he criticises so freely before he gets up and wastes our time he would find that the proposition put quite simply is this, that first of all those occupied in an industry have got to satisfy the Board of Trade that competition due to dumping, clearly defined in Clause 2, either dumping as we understand it, or dumping made possible by foreign exchanges having depreciated, is causing serious unemployment, or that employment in this country is likely to be seriously affected. Then the Board of Trade refers them to a Committee. In face of all the opposition which will be admitted to that Committee these people have again to satisfy that Committee, and then the object of this particular Clause is that the Government, after the Committee have reported in favour of a tariff on these particular goods, is limited to 33⅓ per cent. and cannot put on more. If only the hon. Member would take the trouble to understand the proposals in the Bill I think he would save the time of the House.

Dr. MURRAY: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who criticised my hon. Friend below me has read the Bill, because he told us that 33⅓ per cent. was to be the largest duty under this Bill. It is possible to have 44 per cent.

Major HAMILTON: It has got to be a key industry in that case. I did not go into those details.

Dr. MURRAY: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will support this Amendment. I do not think it is fair to the Parliamentary institutions of this country that we should be discussing a Bill for ten days on which the Government absolutely refuses to accept any Amendment whatever.

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I have put to my name several Amendments.

Dr. MURRAY: I am sorry if my statement was too sweeping, but so far I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has accepted any substantial Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told us last night he was a genial optimist in regard
to trade. Let him prove his optimism; let him show his faith by being content with a 10 per cent. duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) told us a lot about the silk trade, and insisted it was a luxury trade, and that the bulk of the people of this country were not concerned with silk; it was only for the adornment of certain classes.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I made no such statement.

Dr. MURRAY: The working lad in the factory likes to see his girl dressed up with fine silk ribbons in her hat and wearing a silk dress now and again at a ball. Why should the brightening of life be confined to the War profiteers?

Mr. SAMUEL: On a point of Order.

Dr. MURRAY: My hon. Friend spoke for half-an-hour on this subject, and I cannot give way.

The CHAIRMAN: Two hon. Members cannot be on their legs at the same time. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) is in possession of the House, and if he does not wish to give way the matter does not rest with me.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I not ask for protection? What the hon. Member has stated is entirely contrary to what I said.

Dr. MURRAY: : The hon. Member wants to be protected from himself. I am merely giving an interpretation understandable to the Committee of what my hon. Friend said. He did suggest that silk was entirely a luxury trade, and that the lower classes ought not to have their lives brightened by seeing a bit of coloured silk in a girl's hat or anything of that sort. The effect of Free Trade has been to make what were regarded as luxuries available to the many.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is rather beyond the question before the Committee. We have to assume that there is to be a duty. The question is whether it should be 10 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent.

Dr. MURRAY: I support the Amendment because it is the lesser of two evils; 33⅓ per cent. is a great evil, and 10 per cent. is a lesser evil. Dumping has not been proved yet. Dumping is the Mrs. Harris of trade—"There was never no sich a person." So far as dumping is
concerned the tariff reformers were always content with a 10 per cent. duty, and I do not see why 10 per cent. should not be accepted by the Government now. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) told us about motor cars, and said that the duty of 33⅓ per cent. helped the industry. Of course it helps the motorcar industry. I was once the owner of a motor-car—it was a Ford—but I cannot afford to have one to-day, simply because of this 33⅓ per cent. duty. After all, commodities are made for the people who want them, and not for the people who make them. It is certain that this duty has prevented many people from owning motor-cars. With regard to the exchanges, 33⅓ per cent. is really a pill to cure an earthquake. We are told it is only a temporary proposal to meet a temporary difficulty. I wish the President of the Board of Trade would read the views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the permanence of taxes of this kind, once they are imposed. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to speeches in which the Secretary for the Colonies proved to the hilt that once you put on any of these taxes it will be very difficult to get them off. There is an old Scottish saying, "Aince a bailie aye a bailie." As far as the exchanges are concerned, this 33⅓ per cent. is of no use and has no relation to facts. There is no relativity in this whatever.

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two now. I always conclude that a subject has been pretty well thrashed out when the hon. Member who has just spoken is put up to address the House. The question was put to me by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), "Why so high a rate as 33⅓ per cent.?" And he suggested that the rate on this dumping should be only 10 per cent. The reason why the rate is what is proposed is that we regard dumping as a bad thing in itself and we want to stop it. Other countries have tried to stop dumping. In Canada they put a duty on over and above their ordinary tariff, which is a very high tariff. A duty on the scale of 33⅓ per cent. should be a real deterrent. I believe it will act as a deterrent where ordinary dumping is concerned, and we cannot see our way to reduce the figure. I would like to say a few words in reply to the argument regarding dumping under Clause 2 (1) (b), the exchange dumping. It was very interesting to me,
who am now getting on in years and perhaps losing my elasticity and courage, to hear Members like the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) talking as if this was a very simple matter to settle. I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow for pointing out one essential fact which the hon. Member for Lanark had overlooked. The hon. Member for Lanark took up the line that the fixed rate of duty on exchange dumping is a mistake. He suggested that we ought to have had a rate of duty calculated very carefully to correspond with the great differences and the great fluctuations that obviously occur.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Harrow knows, the extent of the bounty in this form of dumping is really the difference between the two values, the external and the internal, and the root difficulty in dealing with this matter is that this is a difference, which in the first place it is impossible to measure, and in the second place is a fluctuating difference. These two reasons alone make it perfectly impossible—even if it were possible in other ways—to contemplate dealing with it by any other than a fixed rate. You may with some reason take the line of argument that this bounty differs so much in different countries, and at different times, that it is quite useless to put on a fixed rate because you will never hit it off, and you may have too high a rate at one time and too low a rate at another. Within limits that is true, but we have tried to meet it. I introduced an Amendment yesterday, that no matter involving a question of depreciated currency shall be referred unless the Board are satisfied that the value of the currency of the country in question in relation to sterling is less by 33⅓ per cent. or upwards than the par value of the exchange. That is to meet the point where you have a very small margin in the differences between the values of the currency, and where 33⅓ per cent. duty would be distinctly too much, and it means in effect that cases of small differences will not come before this Committee.
When you get into the cases where the difference is greater, then for a considerable period 33⅓ per cent. will meet those cases. It is quite true that beyond that, you may get some, where even the 33⅓ per cent. will not be enough. It is very
difficult to say, until the cases are brought before the Committee and examined, what the differences will be found to be; as I have said, they fluctuate, they are never constant, and it is difficult to ascertain them without the closest examination, so I am not going to dogmatise upon that point. It may be that 33⅓ per cent. will not be sufficient in some cases, but if it is not sufficient, at any rate it may be useful in going a great part of the way. The consciousness that there is a power to put on this 33⅓ may quite conceivably act as a deterrent in this, just as in the other form of dumping. I should like to say a word on the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) about the Brussels Conference of last year. That is a very interesting point. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that while it is quite true we took part in that Conference, and while I think the Committee will agree with a great many of the conclusions to which the Conference came, it is only fair to remember another point. I have had to say two or three times over that we are not imposing a general tariff in this country. This Bill does not involve a general tariff. I need not enlarge upon that, but so far as a general tariff is concerned, practically all the countries represented at Brussels have increased their tariffs since the beginning of 1920, and, since the Conference itself sat, duties have been increased by Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, Guatemala—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Two blacks do not make a white.

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot see how anything we did in that Conference at Brussels can prevent us from passing legislation in our own country on such a point as dumping, which is entirely different from a general tariff. If we had gone in for a general tariff, after discussing matters in the terms we did at Brussels, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might fairly have had something to say, but there is nothing which passed at Brussels, that I am aware of, that can, by any stretch of imagination, debar us from dealing at this time with this phenomenon that is facing us at present, namely, the phenomenon of dumping. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams)
once more with regard to steel. I think the Committee has had quite enough of that for one day, and with regard to the new candidate for our sympathy, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow, I think I shall leave him where he is.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, but his defence is about the weakest I ever heard in my life. We sent our representatives to Brussels; they met the representatives of 131 other States; they explored the whole situation, and they tried to diagnose the disease afflicting European trade, of which the exchanges were the symptom. They specially dealt with the exchanges and came to the unanimous decision that the best possible policy was to remove all barriers to international trade. In the face of that we produce this Bill, and the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman—who has my sympathy in his efforts to defend a bad case—is that Guatemala, Switzerland, Belgium, and a number of other nations who were also represented there, went back on the recommendations of their own experts. He says, therefore, we are justified in doing the same. What an excuse! Is that to be the attitude of the British Government which has prided itself in the past on keeping its pledges and engagements, and on the consistency of its policy? Even if that were not enough, the right hon. Gentleman has thrown overboard the Prime Minister. I thought that was coming, and it has come. I could understand a moral decline since last year, when the Brussels Conference was held, but on the 17th February of this year the Prime Minister used an argument in this House which so impressed me that I voted for the Government. I was the only Member of the official Oppositions who voted for the Government on that occasion, and I did so as a result of these words from the Prime Minister:
You have undoubtedly as a result of the War an extravagant immoderate nationalism which finds expression in all sorts of ways which are obstructing commerce. … They say that you must build great walls all around and never give a cup to your neighbour. Czecho-Slovakia has it, and Poland has to a certain extent. They say: 'We will look after our own country.' …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1921; col. 419, Vol. 138.]
Those were the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman's nominal chief and leader.
Now he is thrown overboard. To Czechoslovakia and Poland you must add Great Britain. I voted for the Government, and I feel I have been betrayed. I supported the Prime Minister, and this is the reward I get! It is iniquitous! An hon. Friend beside me says that the Vote was iniquitous, and really, when I look at the Bill, I begin to think it was. This is the evil returned me for the good I did the Government. I shall not make that mistake to-night. I represent the shipping port of Hull, and unemployment in that port is great amongst seafarers. Every ton of goods we get in is in future to have a tariff of 33⅓ per cent., and that means a ton less to go out to pay for those goods, and every £l's worth of goods kept out of this country will prevent £l's worth coming in, and vice versa, and that will mean more unemployment in one of the greatest of our key industries, our shipping.

Major M. WOOD: Supposing there is dumping or that there are exchanges which have gone down in such a way as to make it necessary to put on some duty. It may be they have not gone down far enough, or that the dumping is not so considerable, as to make it necessary to put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. Is the Government really going to take power to put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. when, on the admission of the Committee appointed for the purpose, 20 per cent. will be quite sufficient to meet the necessities of the case? Will the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department consider—if he cannot give me an answer now—between now and Report stage whether the Government might not accept an Amendment, putting in before the 33⅓ per cent., the words, "not more than," so as to give discretionary power to put on just that duty that will meet the necessities of the case? There should be a limit, but there should also be a discretion by the Committee not to put on a bigger duty than will meet the particular case involved.

Mr. KILEY: Before the Committee goes to a Division I think they should realise exactly what the Government mean by these proposals. This matter of depreciated exchanges is really a serious matter and requires serious treatment. The Government want us to believe that they realise this, but consider how they proceed to deal with this very serious
matter? They commence by putting almost every country outside the provisions of this Act on the ground that we have conventions or agreements. They sweep out with one stroke of the pen 98 per cent. of the countries that would be likely to dump goods upon us. They leave in France, which will come under this penalty of 33⅓ per cent., which begins if the depreciation of their exchange exceeds the 33⅓ per cent. Suppose it is only 32⅓ per cent., which is not serious. What stupidity! How can business houses conduct business proceedings in view of these things? Either prohibit the importation altogether or else put on a tariff that will achieve your object. There may be some fear of Germany, but if hon. Members will take the trouble to look at our imports from Germany—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Gentleman's remarks would appear to be more relevant to a Second Reading discussion. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the question of the Amendment, which is to leave out "one-third," and to insert "one-tenth."

Mr. KILEY: I was dealing with the effect this tariff will have on Germany itself, which is supposed to be the country at the present time under this depreciation of 33⅓ per cent. or more, and is dumping vast quantities of goods into this country. If anyone will look at the actual imports into this country in the last figures available for the first three months of the year, they will find that they did not exceed 10 per cent. of the imports in the corresponding three months of any pre-War year. This country then, Germany, is dumping here—or we are led to believe it is—because of their exchanges this vast quantity of goods. The Government are either misleading themselves or misleading the country when they allege that this fearful and calamitous dumping is taking place. If they cannot produce better figures of imports—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have over and over again reminded the hon. Member that while he may be in Order in regard to the Amendment, he is out of Order because of repetition. I have heard over and over again every argument, he is using. He must keep himself to the Question which is before the Committee.

Mr. KILEY: Whether it should be 33⅓ per cent. or a smaller figure, would it
not be better if the Government really fixed the figure at 10 per cent. which, after all, represents 20 per cent.; then they would possibly be able to see that although they had attempted to do something that it was no cure any more than the larger figure was a cure. They might then be able to say: at all events we have done something to deal with this matter from our point of view.

Sir G. COLLINS: I was in the Committee when the President was speaking. If I understood him correctly, the Government propose this 33⅓ per cent. duty because of the internal and external difference in the value of the mark. Do I understand that it is because of the internal and external value of the mark that the Government are proposing this duty? I was called out of the Committee, and, as I entered, I thought I gathered that that was the policy of the Government. Is that really the intention of the Government, because it is a really important subject. We are anxious to find out whether this 33⅓ per cent. duty is to be imposed on account of a depreciated currency in all countries, or whether it is simply because of the internal and external value of the mark. Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform me if I am correct?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think that I should serve any useful purpose by repeating the speech of my right hon. Friend.

Sir G. COLLINS: I have taken up this point on more than one occasion, and I think it is perfectly proper for me to ask for an answer. It is a perfectly reasonable question. The traders of this country are anxious to know whether this Clause applies to every country which has a depreciated currency, or whether it applies only to countries where the external and internal value of the mark has depreciated. I wish to enter a protest against the definite refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to answer a perfectly reasonable request dealing with a matter which affects every trade in the country.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have still a good deal to discuss in this Bill. My right hon. Friend spoke for a long time on this question, and I think it is very reasonable that that reply should stand.

Sir G. COLLINS: If the hon. and gallant Member will answer my question "Yes" or "No," I will resume my seat. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] I do not think that that is a correct interpretation of the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are here for the definite purpose of considering whether 33⅓ per cent. or 10 per cent. should be the duty, and I do not think that the Government have treated the Committee with that respect which the representatives of the taxpayers, gathered together it may be in small numbers, are entitled to receive from the Government.

Sir W. BARTON: After the treatment accorded to the last speaker I do not know whether I dare put a further question. Am I right in assuming that in countries where depreciated exchanges exist this provision would not operate unless the depreciation was not less than 33⅓ per cent.?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: An Amendment on this point was agreed to yesterday.

Question put, "That the word 'one-third' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 67.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[8.52 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Neal, Arthur


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pearce, Sir William


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Pratt, John William


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Prescott, Major W. H.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hills, Major John Waller
Purchase, H. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hope, sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Ramsden, G. T.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkins, John W. W.
Renwick, Sir George


Brown, Major D. C.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Carr, W. Theodore
Hurd, Percy A.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Casey, T. W.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jesson, C.
Seager, Sir William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seddon, J. A.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simm, M. T.


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stanton, Charles Butt


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd, George Butler
Steel, Major S. Strang


Dean, Commander P. T.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stewart, Gershom


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lort-Williams, J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Thomson, Sir W Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lynn, R. J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Edwards. Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Waring, Major Walter


Falcon, Captain Michael
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Forestier-Walker, L.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Manville, Edward
Woolcock, William James U.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mason, Robert
Worsfold, T. Cato


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Matthews, David
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.



Gould, James C.
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, Albert (Derby)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Briant, Frank
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Cairns, John
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Galbraith, Samuel


Gillis, William
Johnstone, Joseph
Swan, J. E.


Glanville, Harold James
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John James
Wallace, J.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Halls, Walter
Mills, John Edmund
Wignall, James


Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hayward, Evan
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hinds, John
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprin)
Wintringham, Thomas


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton



Holmes, J. Stanley
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie


Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Wood.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, B. G.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
As the Committee know, Sub-section (2) deals with goods which are partly manufactured in one country and partly in another. On the Order Paper there is an Amendment to Sub-section (2) in the name of several hon. Members to substitute 25 per cent. for 50 per cent. of the value of the goods as the exemption limit attributable to processes of manufacture undergone since the goods last left the country in relation to which an order has been made. I am anxious that the Committee should observe the difference between the Government policy on this Sub-section and the policy they adopted earlier in the afternoon. The Sub-section states that it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners where these goods are manufactured. If 25 per cent. of the manufacture is in one country and 75 per cent. in another the Commissioners have to determine this very important point. Earlier in the afternoon, when Members from this side of the Committee asked the Government to take note, not only of the unemployment created in one trade, but of the general unemployment throughout the country, and to let their policy be determined not by the interest of a part but by the greater interest of the whole, the President of the Board of Trade said that was a superhuman task which the Committee set up under the Bill could not perform. But under this Sub-section the Commissioners are, in the opinion of the Government, possessed of the ability to determine by examination what percentage of production in Germany, Austria, Belgium or France has been put into certain articles. Does not that show that when the Commissioners and Custom House officials at our ports endeavour to decide that problem they must break down in practice? Does it not also show
that the hopes held out by the Government to their supporters that this Bill will not operate are largely founded on fact, and that as a matter of course the Bill will not come into practical operation, because the Commissioners, with the best will in the world and with all the knowledge they will be able to get from able civil servants, who will be asked by the Government to assist them, will not be able to determine this very important problem?
There is a further question I would like to put. Every package of goods that comes into this country in the future from the Continent will have to be opened. If goods come from certain countries they will not be liable to duty, but if they come from other countries they will be subject to a heavy protective duty. To use a local phrase, there will be money in bringing goods into this country from countries not liable to be taxed, and if by the transfer of goods across the frontier from a country whose currency is not depreciated, you allow goods manufactured in a country with a depreciated currency to escape these high protective duties, then you will create a sense of unfairness between importers in this country. This examination cannot be carried out unless the Government employ a large number of officials at every port in the country to examine cases of goods. My right hon. Friend in the Debate last night drew attention to the very greatly increased cost of the officials in the Customs and Excise. If my memory serves me aright, that cost has risen from £2,000,000 in 1914 to £6,750,000 now. What will happen when this Clause comes into operation? All goods coming here will naturally require to be examined, and there will be lacking a sense of equity and justice if they are not thoroughly examined at every
Customs House throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. Whether the country is in a mood to find money for that or not, evidently the Government are not anxious to find money for more officials, because within the last 48 hours they have refused a very reasonable request for some four officials to enable the House of Commons to exercise better control over expenditure. We are now passing legislation which is bound to have the effect of largely increasing the staff of officials at every port in the country. I remember visiting America before the War, and what a painful experience everyone has when landing there, when they have to go through the Customs and have their belongings carefully and minutely examined because of the high protective duties. The same thing will happen at Dover, Portsmouth, London, Hull and every other port in this country. The goods will require to be examined, and these very minute calculations will require to be made and proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in order to examine the exact amount of the duty. The picture I have drawn of this Clause in operation is, I think, a true one. The difficulties are great, and the cost is high: whether the result will be satisfactory to the country and the Government is a matter of opinion.

Major ENTWISTLE: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will give us the benefit of his experience of the working of the provision similar to this which is contained in the Reparation Act. We had a long discussion, when that Measure was before the House, as to the impracticability of any such provision as this. It is very nice to say in theory that you will not let in any goods which include more than 50 per cent. manufactured in a certain country, but we beg to point out that the only result of that would be to hamper trade, so that traders would not know where they are. The thing would break down owing to its being totally impracticable. Before the Parliamentary Secretary asks us to repeat in another Act what is obviously an impracticable proposition, we should at least have the benefit of the experience he has obtained under the preceding Act, We were told by the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
various other Ministers, that it had been done during the War, that it was perfectly simple, and that we had all the benefit of our war experience. We were venturesome enough to be suspicious of those assurances. I am not myself a trader, and cannot speak from personal knowledge as to the effect of the Reparation Act, but I really am very doubtful whether the provisions of this nature in that Act have been effective. I think we ought to have information as to the total value of the goods which, under these provisions, have been detected. The provision is obviously one which, if it does not work, can result in nothing but hamperng our trade, and I trust that the Committee will not agree to its retention without hearing what has been the experience under the Reparation Act.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I can give the Committee a very good example of the way in which this sort of thing works. It happened in the city which my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Entwistle) and myself have the honour to represent. The Reparation Act has a country of origin Clause very similar to this in form, although the figures are different, and it came into operation just at the season when in Hull we were importing our early fruit and vegetables. I know that food and drink are not included in this Bill, but the difficulty that we had in getting our early fruit and vegetables—it is a very important trade— into Hull will be multiplied dozens of times when we come to complicated manufactured articles. They would not let us bring in our lemons and melons from Spain and from Southern Italy and Sicily because, they said, they might be of German origin. That is literally true, and we had the greatest difficulty. We could get nothing done until my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, with a very representative body of traders from Hull, came as a deputation to the Board of Trade. They received us, as they always do, with the greatest courtesy, and summoned the leading Customs and Excise officials; and eventually we were allowed to get in all sub-tropical fruit of that sort without a certificate of origin. The trade, however, was hampered for weeks.
That is just one example of the difficulty that is caused by a Clause of this kind, once you get into the terrible morass of the country of origin of goods. We had it
during the War in connection with the blockade, and a vast organisation was built up, with a Minister at its head, a vast staff, and a tremendous system of espionage abroad. I do not say that that will be necessary to such an extent now, but there will be that sort of organisation on a smaller scale if you are going to try and differentiate between one country and another. It is all very well to say that certificates of origin can be obtained from the consuls. At many places on the Continent whence important lines of goods are shipped to this country, there is no consul, and we shall again have the same trouble that we had with our fruit and vegetables in Hull. Everyone knows the difficulty of going to a consul. He has not a large staff, he only sees people between certain hours, and it is difficult to see him. It hampers trade, and all these restrictions will injure our people here. Therefore, I hope that this ridiculous Sub-section will be left out. The argument that it would be possible, say, for Holland, with a good rate of exchange, to purchase goods from Germany, which has a bad rate of exchange, and therefore get round the provisions of this Act and ruin the unfortunate manufacturers in England, is quite fallacious, because there would be an extra profit for the Dutch middleman, as well as extra transit expenses and Customs duties, and the game simply would not be worth the candle. From the high Protectionist point of view, it would be better to leave out this Sub-section. If the effect of goods coming into this country is to create unemployment in certain classes of manufactures, it does not matter where they come from. This provision, if retained, will make for friction with other countries and for trouble and expense and worry to English traders, and therefore I hope that the Committee will agree to its deletion.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I cannot accept the proposal to leave out this Sub-section, because to do so would make the Bill quite inoperative. That, perhaps, is what those who support the proposal desire, but it is not what the Government desires. If we accepted this Amendment, we undoubtedly should render the Bill nugatory, because it would at once become open to any country against which an Order was made to pass its goods through any neighbouring country, either with the camou-
flage of some small additional process, or by direct transhipment. The goods would then come here, and we should have failed in the entire purpose of the Bill. For that reason, as we read the Bill and mean to make it workable and effective in the cases in which these duties are imposed, we must insist on this Subsection being maintained in the Bill. I think hon. Members have exaggerated considerably the inconvenience which would be caused. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pictured that on each occasion the Commissioners of Excise would investigate every consignment that came through and would have to make an inquiry into it, and by the light of their knowledge would have to discover what proportion was German and what proportion was attributable to other sources. That is not the way in which the machinery would work at all. The consignor would obtain a certificate of origin. Certificates of origin are not unknown in other countries. They are being worked in other countries in very large numbers, and it is part of the common machinery of those countries. The consignor would obtain a certificate of origin from the consul. If that certificate stated either that the goods are not of German origin, for example, but 35 per cent. of Dutch origin, or that having come originally from Germany they have had more than 25 per cent. of Dutch value added to them—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Fifty per cent.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We propose to accept an Amendment reducing that 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. The 25 per cent. is enough to keep out cases of what I may call a camouflaged process, and enough to let in those cases where a real amount of work has been added in a third country to the articles. A certificate of origin will be obtained from the consul on the spot, and the goods will pass through the Customs and can be cleared and the duty paid immediately the certificate of origin is produced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) smiles. Naturally he wishes to make out that this will be as difficult a process as possible. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly simple.

Mr. WALLACE: How long does it take? Four weeks.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Nothing of the kind. It takes no longer to present a certificate of origin than to present any other shipping document. The certificate of origin comes forward with the bill of lading and the other shipping documents in the ordinary way, and takes precisely the same time to come forward and clear. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) asks me what has been the experience under the working of the Reparation Act.

Mr. KILEY: Not I. I know it too well.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member cannot have got his shipping documents in order.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member will find it will take no longer to pass through, and will be as simple a process as to conduct a count in this House. Under the Reparation Act there were certificates. I made inquiries whether there was a difficulty in obtaining them, and I found there was not. I quite agree that the only case in which there was difficulty, which practical experience led us to meet at once, was the case of perishable goods. In dealing with the German Reparation Act all exports from Germany of all kinds were subject to a levy. That is not the case here. There are only articles which are included in the Schedule and such articles as Part II may be applied to by Order. The real difficulty was the question of these perishable foodstuffs. That cannot possibly arise under this Bill, and even if it could, as my hon. and gallant Friend explained, as soon as that difficulty was foreseen it was promptly met, and, as he will agree, thereafter they came through with great speed. The difficulties attendant upon this have been very greatly exaggerated, and if this provision were not here the working of the Bill would be perfectly impossible.

Mr. WALLACE: That would be a much desired result. The more I consider this Bill and the more frequently I hear it debated, the more convinced I am that it is one of the most ridiculous and one of the most ill-starred Measures which has been introduced by the Government. The
hon. Gentleman has told us he expects no appreciable delay in the future regarding the working out of the provisions that we are now considering, and he bases that belief upon what has happened under the Reparation Act. Does he know anything at all about the commercial aspect of the Reparation Act? Let me give a case in point to show the difficulties which will arise under ths Bill if this Amendment is not accepted. What is the modus operandi of the customs when fiscal matters have to be considered? Let me give the sort of case which will occur under the present Bill. A consignment of goods was sent from Germany on 11th April. That is the date of the invoice and the date of despatch. They reached the consignee in this country on 11th June—and this will take place again. The goods arrived at the Custom House 12 days after despatch from Germany. The Custom House after receiving the goods allowed not a day or two to elapse, but their advice that the goods were received was dated 12th May—23rd April to 12th May. The bond was sent to the Custom House by the consignee in this country on 12th May. In an ordinary commercial transaction with a business house in this country, that bond would have been sent back by return of post. It was not returned by the Custom House until the 27th May. The cheque was sent on the same day as it was received, and the goods reached the consignee in this country on 11th June—23rd April to 11th June—and my hon. Friend has such confidence in this Measure that he ventured to get up here, before responsible business men, and tell us that the working of the Custom House part of the system under the Reparation Act has been so satisfactory that he has absolute confidence regarding the future under the Bill we are considering. I think a responsible Minister of the Crown should have more exact information to give to the Committee, and certainly on a basis of fact, which he has not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee.
I suggest that as little as possible should take place on the part of the Committee in the way of interference with the ordinary channels of trade. It is elementary that a whole lot of the goods which we get in this country, to which this Clause refers, are partly manufactured goods—they may be partly manufactured in Germany and partly
elsewhere. They are, however, absolutely necessary if we in this country are going to continue our export trade. If obstacles of this nature are to be put in the way by this Government, I can assure them that there will be in this country a feeling of dissatisfaction which will be shown in a most unmistakable form against the present Administration. I am a Coalition Liberal. I am extremely anxious to discover any means in a matter of this sort by which I can support the Government, but I say frankly that it cannot be done. I do claim to know something about how business is conducted in this country. I do know that to-day in London and in many commercial centres all over the country business is already upset by the introduction of this Measure. The ordinary business community to-day does not know where it stands. Several firms have come to me and have told me that they are quite unaware how to make contracts to-day on account of the prevailing uncertainty. In this Bill the Government are rendering a very ill service to the commercial interests of this country. I firmly believe that if the Government were to let this matter alone and to allow this Bill to become—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a Second Beading speech. He must direct his observations to the Amendment.

Mr. WALLACE: I apologise for having become irrelevant for a single moment. I shall confine myself entirely to the Sub-section now before the Committee. Considering the many issues involved in this Sub-section, my hon. Friend would do very well to accept the Amendment, and to remove this Subsection altogether from the Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wonder that my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill had very considerable difficulty in maintaining his gravity a little while ago when he was defending this Sub-section of the Clause. I am glad to recognise in a fellow Member who has some connection, at any rate, north of the Tweed, the element of humour, and that he understands the supposition that we are not able to appreciate a joke. He evidently does appreciate the joke in this Sub-section. If hon. Members will listen for a moment while I read two or three lines of it, they
will appreciate what the extraordinary difficulties are—
Where goods are manufactured partly in one country and partly in another, or undergo different processes in different countries, and any one or more of those countries are countries in relation to which an order applying to the goods in question has been made under this Part of this Act, the goods shall be liable—
unless, under the proposed Amendment, in another country, to which the Order does not apply, 25 per cent. of that value has been added. Let us see how it is going to work under this part of the Bill. If hon. Members will turn their minds back to the part of Sub-section (2), which, under the guillotine, we did not discuss at all, and therefore we can now make reference to, as it directly relates to this, they will see, first of all, that it says
at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined.
Let us see what the Customs officials have to look at. What does "cost of production" mean? Clause 8 says it is:

"(a) the wholesale price at the works charged for goods of the class or description for consumption in the country of manufacture; or
(b) if no such goods are sold for consumption in that country, the price which, having regard to the prices charged for goods as near as may be similar when so sold or when sold for exportation to other countries, would be so charged if the goods were sold in that country;"
That is the first thing. What is the next thing under this part of the Bill? We now come to the part on which we had something approaching a Debate last night:
(b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;
That is the collapsed exchange. Let me try and apply that to a concrete instance of which I happen to have some personal knowledge. Some clients of mine, a very large firm in South Wales, last February or March ordered electrical machinery for work in one of their great collieries. That electrical machinery was partly made in Germany and the other part had been manufactured in Switzerland. Under the Reparation Act they were in great difficulties about it, and the whole order was cancelled because they could not carry it through, and they were not going to be bothered with it. What
happens under this Bill, supposing they attempt once again to do business and to get electrical machinery. First of all, it is quite easy to prove that the industry here which manufactures electrical machinery is in a depressed condition. Then they have, first of all, to ascertain under Part II either "prices below the cost of production" as defined in Clause 8, or the question of the collapsed exchange. Both these factors, no doubt, are easily ascertainable in Germany. Having found out what is the wholesale price in Germany—

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not quite follow. The gentlemen who are going to buy electrical machinery will not have to ascertain anything except the cost of the machinery until an order has been made.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is the whole point. If they bought this machinery, all this has got to be done by our officials to ascertain whether these goods can be brought into this country. Everyone of these things has to be ascertained before the goods will be delivered. Of course, that must be so, else what is the good of this thing at all? That is the process which must be gone through. It is what the Bill says that our officials have to ascertain. These are two factors you must find out with regard to that particular machinery before it is admitted here, namely, what is the cost of production in Germany, and—

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My right hon. Friend has not read the Clause aright. The Customs officials will not have to find out anything about that particular machinery. If a collapsed exchange order has been made under the Bill in regard to that particular class of goods it will be effective in regard to all goods of that class. If the order has not been made, then there will be no duty on any goods in that class.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This gets, "curiouser and curiouser" as we go along. If you have your collapsed exchange ascertained that is a condition, but on the other point you will also have to find the "prices below the cost of production." Either of those factors have got to be ascertained. What happens again? One part of that machine is in Switzerland. The dumping part may
apply, but the collapsed exchange part does not apply. The value of 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. is added in Switzerland and it comes through without any trouble. Suppose the other part of the machine is made in Belgium, our ally, our friend in the War for whom we entered the War. What happens there? Immediately this Act comes into operation, and either the thing is shut out altogether or there are three or four or six months' delay. Was there ever a more farcical business? If it comes from Switzerland, a country which very largely benefited by the War, it is all right, but if it comes from an ally, whose sacrifices in the War have been beyond words, every obstacle is put against it. It is not so much a farce as a tragedy that it is possible for a Government to pledge its credit to so insane a Measure as this. Take these words and attempt to understand them and assume that you are going to get Customs officers to work them and apply them. What the world wants to-day is business to be reestablished and not prevented. This is a Sub-section of a Bill for the prevention of trade. A more clear example of the tragical folly of the whole performance could not be produced than this Subsection.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I frankly admit that up to the time when we came to this rather complicated Subsection I have supported the Government all the way through; but when I heard one of that miscellaneous collection of ex-Liberals on my right talking about officials and arguing that under this Subsection we should have a larger number of Customs officials than before, I was rather inclined to believe that there was something that we might lose in economy under this Sub-section. After a little while, I heard the hon. and Gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) enthusiastically supporting his leader, and I remembered that it was only a few nights ago that he deliberately talked out a Measure to enable this House to have fuller financial control. I am referring to the occasion when he became very loquacious about two minutes to eleven two nights ago on the question of the Estimates Committee. One minute these hon. Members are economists and the next minute they are in favour of expenditure of the widest character. There are one or two points in connection with this Sub-section which I do not
understand. The business position is quite easy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that there are no business men on my right, so we need not worry about them. What is meant by these words?
unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners.
I am not a lawyer, but I see the Lord Advocate of Scotland present, and I wonder if he would be kind enough to give us a clear definition of how he would interpret in a Law Court the word "satisfaction" as laid down in this Subsection. The definition, possibly, would not be as good as if we had a really first-class English lawyer here to give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] There are certain Scotsmen here who know nothing about their own country. Scottish law is entirely different from English law. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us his definition from the Scottish law point of view, and later on we might get one of the English Law Officers to give us his definition. The Sub-section proceeds:
that fifty per cent. or more of the value of the goods.
There is an Amendment down in the name of the Government to alter the 50 to 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is our Amendment, also!"] I admit that according to the names attached to the Amendment, it is a Coalition Amendment. I would like to ask some of the eminent Free Traders, the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Sir H. Mackinder) or the Minister of Health, to explain to us precisely which would be the best, 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. If my questions could be answered satisfactorily, I should know on which side to vote.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Some people appear to think that this Clause can easily be worked, but it is not so simple as has been made out. This question as to the certificate of the country of origin is not an easy matter to work. I am at the present time in the midst of discussion with the Customs authorities over this particular point in respect to reparation. Before the War I was conducting experiments in Germany with certain machinery, but this machinery had to be abandoned in Germany when the War broke out. Recently I decided to send for this machinery. It was duly forwarded by my German friends. In due course it arrived
in Hull. When it arrived in Hull, under the Reparations Act, a claim was made on me for 26 per cent. of the value of the machinery. I explained to the Custom House officials that that machinery was never paid for by the Germans and never belonged to them, but belonged to me for the whole time of the War, and it was simply being returned to its rightful owner. I showed them my name on the castings, but that was not sufficient for the Customs, and I am obliged now before I get hold of that machinery to sign a bond amounting to 26 per cent. of the value of the goods, representing the duty, in case that at some subsequent period it may appear that this machinery originated in Germany, in spite of the fact that it has my name on it. I mention that case simply because it is such a good example of the process of making Germany pay.

Dr. MURRAY: I desire to support this Amendment. The Sub-section which I wish to have omitted shows the entire folly of this Bill. The fact that even the Custom House officers find it difficult to understand provisions of this sort has been illustrated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with regard to fruit. Evidently the Custom House officers do regard fruit as a sort of a composite, one part being grown in Spain and the other part in Germany. We all know that the pip is made in Germany and the pulp is grown in Spain. Therefore the Custom House officers would have solemnly to declare how much should be put down to pip and how much to pulp, and all these oranges were delayed several weeks before they were cleared out of the Custom House. That is a caricature of the whole business, but it illustrates in a forcible way what will occur when this is put in force. What grieves me so far as I understand this Sub-section is, that it will make the smuggling of these things much more easy. It would therefore require the fitting up of a large number of ships as revenue cutters to prevent the smuggling that must take place from some of these countries. Thus this Sub-section will be the means of creating a big horde of officials by land and sea. Of course, I will get no thanks from my own constituents for objecting to anything that will produce smuggling. But one must do one's duty, no matter what his constituents think. I hope that this Sub-section will be deleted.

Mr. ACLAND: I have been trying to understand this Clause. One thing which strikes me is that it is a very good thing that it does not apply to food, because if it did we should have all sorts of questions about eggs. For instance, if a Swiss cock and a French hen were concerned, all sorts of questions would arise.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the manufacture of an egg can take place in more than one country.

Mr. ACLAND: The words of the Bill are "the processes of manufacture." [Laughter, and HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I am speaking up, but if hon. Members will laugh while I am speaking they cannot hear me. If goods are made mainly in Germany, and the finishing touches are put upon them in Switzerland to the extent of 25 per cent., they come in free of duty. I am not talking of dumping. That means that the main work has been done in Germany, and only a little more than a quarter in Switzerland; but if the main work has been done in Switzerland, and the goods pass in an almost completed state into Germany, so that only 10 per cent. of the work is done in Germany, those goods are liable to duty because Germany was the last country from which they came. Which goods are likely to compete more as having been made in a country with collapsed exchanges? Surely the goods which were mostly made in Germany with regard to which no. duties will be payable, and not the goods mostly made in Switzerland with regard to which duty will be payable. If you said that wherever 75 per cent. of the value had been put into the goods in a country with a collapsed exchange you would hit that with your duty, that, although foolish, would be logical; but you are saying, if you are going on the last country from which they came, if that was a country with a collapsed exchange, however little was done to them there, you are going to hit the goods; but if the final process of more than 25 per cent. was done in a country without a collapsed exchange, then, however much they compete, because the bulk of the manufacture, 75 per cent., was done in another country, you cannot hit those goods at all. That is a loophole in the Bill, and we ought to have some explanation why it is that the Swiss goods are to be hit, even if only 10 per cent. is done on them in Germany, but that
German goods are to be free if 25 per cent. of the work has been done in Switzerland.

Mr. KILEY: I listened with amazement to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that there was no delay caused at the ports, and I suggest to him that when a convenient opportunity arises he should go to some of these ports and learn the position on the spot. If goods coming in from abroad are not dutiable, they are loaded immediately into the wagons and carted away, but when goods are subject to duty, they must be seized by the Customs officials and taken into a bonded store and documented, and that incurs a delay of from 3 to 33 days on each consignment of goods. Therefore, when the Minister says there is no delay at all, he is very wide of the mark indeed. I will undertake to drive a torpedo through this Sub-section unless the Minister in charge will alter the wording, and I will tell him how it can be done. We have excluded quite a large number of countries from the operation of this Bill. London is a market for a great many raw materials, and in my own district we have a large industry in furs, brought from all parts of the world. They are dressed and dyed, and a large number of the skins are dyed in Germany. If they come back from Germany, they will be subject to the reparation charge, but suppose instead of sending them to Germany you send them to Belgium, you cannot prevent the Belgians from sending them to Germany to be dyed and getting them back again. That applies to something like 26 different countries with whom we have got Treaties. Therefore, as far as the effect of this Sub-section is concerned, a torpedo can be driven through it quite easily, and I suggest to the Minister that if he wants it to be effective he should make it so, or else withdraw it altogether.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. FRANCE: The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Williams) who is anxious to support the Government and who is halting between two opinions and cannot understand Subsection (2) appeals to the Government to put up a lawyer or some person of intelligence on the Front Bench to explain it, and there is no response. May I appeal to the Government to send for the Minister of Education, or the Home Secre-
tary, or the Minister of Labour, or some other Minister to explain the Clause, for there are many hon. Members who do not in the least understand it.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I did not deal with the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut. - Commander Williams), because I gathered that the gravamen of his charge was directed at hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I can assure him that he need be under no hesitation as to voting for the Government on this as on all occasions. As to the appeal addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), if it were to carry weight with me at all it would be to withdraw the 25 per cent. concession in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and propose the full 50 per cent. I am not sure he is serious in making the appeal. He really suggests that we should follow these goods through all the countries, and, when goods came into Germany and came out from Germany again, that we should make an analysis of what the constituent parts of those goods were and whether they came from within Germany or from within other countries. That would be quite impracti-

cable, and I suggest that the practical course is, as we propose, to take the goods as they come out of the country which is subject to the duty.

Mr. HAYWARD: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if any Consular certificate has been drafted such as will be required, because, if so, it would be interesting to have a copy of it laid on the Table of the House. A great many inquiries would have to be made in the case of these goods, and it would impose a very great burden upon somebody to do that. We should either have to increase our Consular staff very largely, in which case we should see great increases in the Foreign Office Vote, or, if the work was done by the Customs authorities, we should see a large increase in the Vote for the Custom House officers here, as we did, in fact, see two years ago after the Government's first experiment with the fiscal system of this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'fifty' ["the Commissioners that fifty"], stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 67.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
[10.7 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Dean, Commander P. T.
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Atkey, A. R.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hood, Joseph


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hopkins, John W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edgar, Clifford B.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hurd, Percy A.


Barnston, Major Harry
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jephcott, A. R.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Forrest, Walter
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Blair, Sir Reginald
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lindsay, William Arthur


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gould, James C.
Lloyd, George Butler


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Grant, James Augustus
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bruton, Sir James
Green, Albert (Derby)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Carr, W. Theodore
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Lort-Williams, J.


Casey, T. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lynn, R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
McConnell, Thomas Edward


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Manville, Edward


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Mason, Robert
Ramsden, G. T.
Sutherland, Sir William


Matthews, David
Renwick, Sir George
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Mitchell, William Lane
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waring, Major Walter


Neal, Arthur
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Seager, Sir William
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Seddon, J. A.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Parker, James
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Pearce, Sir William
Simm, M. T.
Wise, Frederick


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Perring, William George
Stanier, Captain Sir Seville
Woolcock, William James U.


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, Otty)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Stanton, Charles Butt
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Pratt, John William
Stewart, Gershom



Prescott, Major W. H.
Sturrock, J. Leng
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Purchase, H. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Halls, Walter
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Armitage, Robert
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hinds, John
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Briant, Frank
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Wallace, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Waterson, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnstone, Joseph
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kennedy, Thomas
Wignall, James


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty,
Kiley, James Daniel
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lawson, John James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wintringham, Thomas


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Glanville, Harold James
Mallalieu, Frederick William



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Wood.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Myers, Thomas

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), I leave out the word "fifty" ["fifty per cent. or more"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Mr. KILEY: had given notice of an Amendment, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "value" ["the value of the goods"], and to insert instead thereof the word "cost."

The CHAIRMAN: The effect of this Amendment might be to increase the charge, and in any case to put in the word "cost" without definition makes it incomplete.

Major BARNES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
This Sub-section is one under which goods manufactured in the United Kingdom and sent abroad in order to undergo a finishing process are regarded
as goods wholly manufactured in the country to which they are sent, and are therefore liable under this Bill to the imposition of the duty laid down. But in order to meet what is an obvious hardship, it is enacted that after these duties have been levied and paid the person receiving the goods on their return may bring before the Commissioners proof of the fact that they were originally manufactured in this country, and that therefore a great part of their value is value arising in this country, and that they ought not to be charged under this Bill. Having established this fact he is then entitled to receive a drawback, which is calculated on the basis of the value of the goods before exportation and the value of the goods on their return. We submit that that is putting the traders and manufacturers in this country under disabilities to which they ought not to be subjected. The advantage to this country
in the way of revenue can be very trifling and the danger to this country in the direction in which danger is supposed to come, must be of the slightest kind. Imagine what Part II of this Bill is intended to avert. It is the danger of goods manufactured in another country being sold in this country at prices below their cost, and in consequence putting-certain industries in this country out of action. In this particular case the main value of the goods must arise in this country and from the employment of labour in this country, and the value which accrues to them on account of the finishing process in another country can only be of the slightest kind.
It is not our view that cheapness is a danger, but, if cheapness be a danger, that danger can arise only in a very slight degree on the finishing process. What must happen? It is obvious that it is desirable not to choke up the channels of trade any more than is absolutely necessary. Trade consists in the passage of commodities from one person to another. Every delay and obstacle in that passage makes trade more difficult. Could a more cumbersome procedure be imagined than that under this Clause, where all kinds of proof have to be furnished? The President of the Board of Trade could at least give us the small concession that goods manufactured in this country, whatever processes may be applied to them in other countries, should not come under the provisions of this Bill. Let the Bill make it clear that the provisions apply only to goods manufactured abroad. In the Subsection we have just dealt with the President of the Board of Trade has introduced an Amendment which minimises some of our objections to the Sub-section. Twenty-five per cent. has been substituted for 50 per cent. We ask him to go on with that good work and to give manufacturers the relief now sought.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment has rather misconceived the purpose of the Sub-section, and has not considered what the position would be if the Sub-section were not there. The position is that an order would be made against certain classes of commodities coming from certain countries, and therefore all manufactured goods of such classes coming from those countries would undoubtedly be liable to the full amount of the duty. Therefore
if no more was said, the semi-manufactured articles sent abroad from this country to undergo a finishing process and re-imported afterwards, would be subject to the duty of 33⅓ per cent. This Sub-section enables a person who exports goods in this way for the finishing process to obtain a rebate which otherwise he would not obtain under that Clause. I do not think it would be fair to go any further. If it has been proved that there is in respect of a particular commodity an advantage as to export by reason of the depreciated exchange, it is held that the duty ought to apply. If a person exports from this country in order to have a finishing process carried out, say, in Germany, then pro tanto he is taking advantage of the bounty in that country, and to that extent the duty ought to apply. That is perfectly reasonable, but if the course suggested is carried out, it would make these goods liable to the whole amount of the duty.

Captain BENN: This Sub-section will impose a duty on British shipping. I shall explain that. When a man exports an article for a finishing process abroad, and the process is completed and he re-imports, he is allowed a certain drawback in duty, but he has to pay the entire cost of transport both to the country in which the process is carried on and on the return of the goods from that country. Therefore the Board of Trade in their efforts to correct the depreciated exchanges are imposing a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on the British shipping which carries the goods abroad and back again.

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: Why British?

Captain BENN: Well, hitherto, under Free Trade we did maintain a shipping service. The policy of the hon. Gentle man, whose views I know well, would possibly very soon destroy British shipping. I cannot but think that this point has been overlooked by the Government, The value that will be taken of the goods when they come back, is the value after paying the cost of transport, insurance, and freight, and, therefore, a tax is levied upon the shipping service. I would be glad to know if the Government intends to deal with what must obviously have been an oversight on their part.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I ask the Committee to consider what kind of trade will really be hit by this Clause as it stands. We assume that there is some process which can be done in a foreign country so much cheaper, that it actually pays to send English semi-manufactured goods to that country to have that process performed there, and then to bring them back, having paid the double freight and the cost of the process abroad. That indicates that the process abroad is in some way superior to what could be done in this country. Every country has special facilities and special aptitudes, and there are certain processes which are so much better done in foreign countries, that it pays to send goods there to have it done. Where there are processes so much better in England it is better to send them to be done here. If you are going to interfere with these processes you are going to interfere with the economical production and finishing of goods, not only in this, but in other countries. I suggest to the Government that this is a bad interference with economical production, and that they should either by the acceptance of this Amendment, or, if this is not applicable to the purpose, by introducing some other Amendment, allow British goods to go to these countries where there are special processes, special skill, and special knowledge of chemistry, and so get the benefit of these processes; otherwise we shall be interfering with our export trade. If we send abroad goods to get the very latest processes and the most advantageous treatment then we can afterwards re-export those goods to the whole world. If we are prevented from doing that our goods become inferior, and we will be placed at a disadvantage with our competitors in other parts of the world, and our people will be thrown out of employment.

Mr. KILEY: It has been stated to-night that London is one of the world's markets

where many commodities are imported and exported, but there is a growing industry in the East End that has not been much heard of, and that is the fur trade. Furs are imported from all parts of the world in their raw state, cleaned and dyed, and subsequently sold in their finished state for clothing. Some countries do this dyeing and cleaning with more skill than we do, or have better facilities, and these furs are sent abroad, subsequently brought back, and made into garments here, and then re-shipped to all parts of the world. These processes enable us to do a very large and profitable business. Every obstacle, every tax, every interference with that procedure prevents the expansion of that business. Had we the necessary skill and appliances no one would have anything to say to our doing it; but it so happens that we have to send these goods hundreds of miles away to other countries. Those concerned do not do this for amusement, but from sheer-necessity, and to enable them to carry on their business. To get these goods back from foreign countries you must have a Consular certificate, as we have been told to-night, but the Consul may be, and very often is, hundreds of miles away from the place where the work is performed, and I suggest that when after much trouble his signature is obtained, on payment of 5s. or 10s., it is not worth the paper it is on, seeing he is not in the district where the work is done. All this is hampering to trade, and, indeed, can have no other result.

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'after' ['after having been exported'], stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 65.

Division No. 216.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Blair, Sir Reginald


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barlow, Sir Montague
Borwick, Major G. O.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Barnston, Major Harry
Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Atkey, A. R.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Bagiey, Captain E. Ashton
Betterton, Henry B.
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Bruton, Sir James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Carr, W. Theodore


Casey, T. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hood, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pratt, John William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Purchase, H. G.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Ramsden, G. T


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hurd, Percy A.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Reid, D. D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Renwick, Sir George


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Seager, Sir William


Doyle. N. Grattan
Lloyd, George Butler
Seddon, J. A.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Simm, M. T.


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lort-Williams, J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Falcon, Captain Michael
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Stanton, Charles Butt


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lynn, R. J.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Forestier-Walker, L.
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Stewart, Gershom


Forrest, Walter
Mackinder. Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sutherland, Sir William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Green, Albert (Derby)
Manville, Edward
Townley, Maximilian G.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Tryon, Major George Clement


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Mason, Robert
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Mitchell, William Lane
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Waring, Major Walter


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neal, Arthur
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Frederick


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Parker, James
Woolcock, William James U.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pearce, Sir William
Worsfold, T. Cato


Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Younger, Sir George


Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Walter Frank



Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Myers, Thomas


Armitage, Robert
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Halls, Walter
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayward, Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Irving, Dan
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Wignall, James


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Johnstone, Joseph
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Thomas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kiley, James Daniel
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lawson, John James
Wintringham, Thomas


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at
half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194, Noes, 69.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parker, James


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Pearce, Sir William


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atkey, A. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, William George


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pratt, John William


Barlow, Sir Montague
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Purchase, H. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, G. T.


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Renwick, Sir George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hood, Joseph
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Seager, Sir William


Bruton, Sir James
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Seddon, J. A.


Carr, W. Theodore
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Casey, T. W.
Jephcott, A. R.
Simm, M. T.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stewart, Gershom


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lloyd, George Butler
Sturrock, J. Leng


Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Sutherland, Sir William


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Dean, Commander P. T.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Tryon, Major George Clement


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lynn, R. J.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Doyle, N. Grattan
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edgar, Clifford B.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Waring, Major Walter


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Elveden, Viscount
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Manville, Edward
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mason, Robert
Wise, Frederick


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, William Lane
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Forrest. Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Woolcock, William James U.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Younger, Sir George


Glyn, Major Ralph
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)



Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant, James Augustus
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Glanville, Harold James


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Armitage, Robert
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Grundy, T. W.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Halls, Walter


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
France, Gerald Ashburner
Hayday, Arthur


Briant, Frank
Galbraith, Samuel
Hayward, Evan


Cairns, John
Gillis, William
Hinds, John


Hirst, G. H.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Mills, John Edmund
Swan, J. E.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wallace, J.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Mosley, Oswald
Waterson, A. E.


Irving, Dan
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wignall, James


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Johnstone, Joseph
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)


Kennedy, Thomas
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J W. (Stourbridge)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Kiley, James Daniel
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lawson, John James
Rose, Frank H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lunn, William
Royce, William Stapleton



Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. G.




Thorne.

CLAUSE 4.—(Remission and repayment of duty in certain cases.)

Where an order has been made under this Part of this Act applying this Part of this Act to goods of any class or description on the ground that goods of that class or description being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices below the cost of production thereof, the following provisions shall have effect—

(1) If any person by whom any duty would be payable proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods in respect of which the duty is payable, have already been sold in the United Kingdom at a price which was not less than the cost of production the payment of duty shall be remitted.
(2) If any person by whom any duty has been paid proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods were on the first sale thereof within the United Kingdom sold at a price which was not less than the cost of production of the goods, or where there has been a change in the market conditions of the country of manufacture, not less than the amount which would on the date of sale have been the cost of production in that country of similar goods he shall be entitled to repayment of the duty so paid.
(3) No such remission or repayment of duty shall be made, unless and until there is produced to the Commissioners a declaration in the prescribed form made by the consignor of the goods stating the cost of production, at the date of the declaration, of the goods, and the country of manufacture of the goods, certified by a British Consular officer, or by some other person duly authorised by the Board to give certificates for the purposes of this part of this Act, to be to the best of his knowledge and belief a true declaration.

For the purpose of any claim to remission or repayment of duty under this Section, the declaration by the consignor, duly certified by a British consular officer or other person as

aforesaid, shall be conclusive evidence of the amount of the cost of production of the goods to which the declaration relates.

A certificate under this Section shall be in such form and be subject to such conditions as to period of validity and otherwise as the Board may direct.

(4) Where goods which have been charged with duty are, without being sold, used in the United Kingdom for any purpose, they shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed on being so used to have been sold, and in such a case the sale price shall for the purposes aforesaid he taken to be an amount representing the price at which the goods were actually purchased from the exporter, together with freight and insurance and the amount of any import duty, other than the duty under this Part of this Act, which may have been paid in respect of the goods.

The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments to this Clause on the Paper are not in Order, because they represent hypotheses which, are inconsistent with what has already been passed. The third Amendment is incomplete, and would require consequential Amendments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It seems to me to make English.

The CHAIRMAN: The Sub-section refers only to the cost of production, and therefore would have to be amended at various points. Those Amendments do not appear on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 62.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Atkey, A. R.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Barlow, Sir Montague


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barnston, Major Harry


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pratt, John William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ramsden, G. T.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hinds, John
Reid, D. D.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hoare. Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Renwick, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hood, Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bruton, Sir James
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roundel), Colonel R. F.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Casey, T. W
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cautley, Henry Strother
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Seager, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Seddon, J. A.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simm, M. T.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanler, Captain Sir Seville


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lloyd, George Butler
Stanton, Charles Butt


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davidson. J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Stewart, Gershom


Dean, Commander P. T.
Lort-Williams, J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sugden W. H.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Edge, Captain William
Lynn, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
McConnell, Thomas Edward
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Elveden, Viscount
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wallace, J.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Manville, Edward
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mason, Robert
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Forrest, Walter
Mitchell, William Lane
Waring, Major Walter


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


France, Gerald Ashburner
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Munro. Rt. Hon. Robert
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Glyn, Major Ralph
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wise, Frederick


Grant, James Augustus
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Oman. Sir Charles William C.
Woolcock, William James U.


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Parker, James
Worsfold, T. Cato


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pearce, Sir William
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Younger, Sir George


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Walter Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Perring, William George
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Philipps. Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Myers, Thomas


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Halls, Walter
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayward, Evan
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Briant, Frank
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnstone, Joseph
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Thomas
Wignall, James


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kiley, James Daniel
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lawson, John James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Glanville, Harold James
Mallalieu, Frederick William



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. G.


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Thorne.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDIT AND INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I would appeal to the House to let us have the Third Reading of this Bill now. It is a Bill on which the House was unanimous on Second Heading. It has passed through Committee, with only two drafting Amendments. Seeing that it has so far passed with the consent of the whole House, I hope it will receive the Third Reading without opposition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am always ready to accede to requests by the Government when possible, but on this occasion there are two matters of great importance which I wish to raise. The first is with regard to India. Since the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department made his statement on the Second Reading it has become evident that he rather put his foot in it with regard to the Indian commercial community. Judging by the correspondence in the Press, the Indian Government have taken the matter up. He said that the Government proposed to extend the Bill to Poland, Lithuania, Roumania, Georgia, Armenia, and so on, but it was not intended to extend the Bill to British India. Considering that to-day we have an Imperial Conference sitting, with India represented by a most distinguished statesman, and asked to bear her fair share of the burden of Empire, I think that decision of the Government was rash, to put it on the lowest ground—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 5.—(Suspension of power to make special schemes.)

The power of the Minister, under section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period:

Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words
notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published—
and insert
application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or—

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Section 18 of the principal Act of 1920 provided for setting up special schemes for the contracting out of various industries from the main scheme, but the present state of funds compels me to introduce into this Bill a Clause limiting severely for the time being, during the deficiency period this power to contract out. Therefore we put into this Bill Clause 5, providing that orders approving special schemes should not be exercised during the deficiency period. But this is also a proviso that the section shall not apply where notice of a proposal to make a special order has been published before 8th June, 1921. We put that in in order to keep faith with those who had practically gone all the distance towards the creation of a special scheme. On the Report stage my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery) thought I had drawn my line too tightly and I resisted that frankly. In another place at the instance of Lord Selborne the proviso was made to read
Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where application has been made to the Minister to approve a Special scheme on or before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
That is much too wide. I propose to disagree with the Lords, and I suggest a form of words as an alternative which I hope may be acceptable to this House and no less acceptable to-morrow to the other House. My alternative is as follows:
Provided that this Section shall not apply in any case where, before the eighth
day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, a draft scheme appearing to the Minister to be complete has been submitted to him, and application has before that date been made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the principal Act.

Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to support the disagreement with the Lords Amendment. I am not quite clear whether I could support the suggested alternative of the Minister. I would first like to know the number of schemes that have been already so submitted to him, in order that we might judge as to the number likely eventually to take advantage of that Amendment and go out of the main scheme. It is quite clear that if there is a large number going out of the scheme the unfortunate, residue left in the scheme will find that although those at present involved in the scheme have helped create the deficiency and have drawn upon the surplus for the 1911 scheme, they will be allowed to go out and become relieved of their responsibility to make good their share of the deficiency. The actuary who appeared before the Special Committee of Inquiry into the employment exchanges said it would be fatal to any national scheme of unemployment insurance if the best industries, with a percentage of anything up to five, were allowed to go out, leaving the residue, which would necessarily have a much higher percentage of unemployment in the scheme. That would necessitate a review, and higher contributions would undoubtedly be asked of those left in the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman's alternative is agreed to and a large number are involved, they would be out of the scheme within the next month. The residue would consist of those intermittently employed, those employed in casual industries, and the percentage that might now be 25 would at once go up to not less than 30. It would not only lengthen the deficiency period, but it might also call for another early revision, necessitating a higher contribution from those least able to pay it, because the better and more favourable trades had been allowed to contract out. If the right hon. Gentleman would say to what extent his Amendment would affect those already in the scheme, if the number is few in comparison with the larger body, I think one must withdraw one's objec-
tion with a view to meeting the desires of the Noble Lords in the other House.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure my hon. Friend I am anxious not to allow more than three or four to come under this provision.

Mr. HAYDAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly the number involved? Would it be two millions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Sir W. BARTON: I would like to have information on the financial effect of this change. What is the difference between the Bill as it left this House and as it is now, and what is the difference between the Lords Amendment and the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As far as I understand it, the only difference between the Bill and the proposal the right hon. Gentleman now makes is that in the one case the scheme has to be "published" and in the other case the scheme has to be "completed." I do not think he is giving any concession at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has behaved at all fairly to those people who wanted to contract out of the scheme. He brings in a Bill first of all giving them an option to contract out. A lot of those industries go through very expensive negotiations, they employ legal opinion, they put out a great deal of money, and then the right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill doing away with contracting out.

Dr. MACNAMARA: For the time being.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: He only allows one single industry, the insurance industry, to contract out, and the insurance industry finds it only requires 50 per cent. of the contributions under the State scheme to make it solvent, which shows that it is to the benefit of the employed people and employers to be out of the scheme. I went to another place and got the actual Amendment, and so far as I can see there is no concession at all in what is now proposed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend interposing to raise objection to the restriction which my right hon. Friend is seeking to enforce. My hon. Friend intervenes generally in debate to blame the Government for spending public money
injudiciously, and on this occasion, when the Government are trying to restrict their liability and save the public purse, my hon. Friend is equally critical and equally violent in opposition.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Contracting out costs the Government a great deal less.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken. If general contracting out is now allowed it will cost the taxpayer a great deal more. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour feels, on reflection, having listened to what was said in another place, and reflected on what was said here, that he had drawn his Bill rather too tightly, and he has met what I believe was the object of the other place by the new Amendment which he has proposed. It will let in those schemes which are practically completed. They are four or five in number. They do not affect a large number of men and therefore do not affect in a material degree the finances of the Bill. But there would be some reason to charge the Government with harshness if those four or five schemes, which are on the eve of acceptance, were excluded, and it is to meet their case that my right hon. Friend is proposing the Amendment referred to.

Sir T. ROBINSON: I am afraid this case may be far more serious than appears on the surface. The Minister proposes to allow four or five industries to contract out. To what extent are those four or five industries indebted to the national fund?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not answer that question at the moment.

Sir T. RICHARDSON: The Bill as it stands practically precludes the people who have sent some of us here to represent them from ever having any benefit under the Bill. Unless we can get outside the Bill we are going to continue paying, instead of the taxpayer, to make the funds solvent, and without any hope of drawing a penny. For a million men

to be paying contributions until the fund is solvent, without hope of any benefit, is manifestly unfair.

Mr. LAWSON: The Amendment of the Lords is exactly in line with the action taken by the Labour Party throughout the discussion of this Bill. Originally, on principle, we did not believe in contracting out, but the Government insisted on contracting out in its original Act. Large organisations have prepared various plans of their own and spent large sums of money, but their schemes are not completed in the sense required, and now they find they are to be deprived of the right originally given to other organisations. This situation has been created by the zig-zag legislation of the Government. Having led the unions into the position of spending thousands of pounds, they abandon their proposal. All along, we have put the arguments which have been put in another place. The right hon. Gentleman now sees the wisdom of those arguments when they come from another place, instead of from these benches. It has been said that there is some democracy left in Parliament, but that it is at the other end from this. The Members of this House will enjoy the unusual sight of the Labour Party supporting a Lords Amendment, because at least it is consistent. We have regularly stood for this line of policy since the introduction of the Bill. While we think contracting out, originally, was a mistake yet it has led the unions into expenditure on a large scale and it is unfair at this point to drop it and leave them in such a position that all the work they have done will be of no effect at all. We support the Lords Amendment because it is consistent, and on the line of policy which the Government should have taken.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 32.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[11.23 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Barlow, Sir Montague
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnston, Major Harry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bruton, Sir James


Atkey, A. R.
Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Carr, W. Theodore


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Borwick, Major G. O.
Casey, T. W.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Johnstone, Joseph
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kennedy, Thomas
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Seager, Sir William


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Seddon, J. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lloyd, George Butler
Simm, M. T.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Fildes, Henry
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Stanton, Charles Butt


Forrest, Walter
Lynn, R. J.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
M'Connell, Thomas Edward
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stewart, Gershom


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mason, Robert
Sugden, W. H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane
Sutherland, Sir William


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray. William (Dumfries)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Neal, Arthur
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, J.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, James
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Waring, Major Walter


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hayday, Arthur
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Wise, Frederick


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pratt, John William
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Purchase, H. G.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ramsden, G. T.
Younger, Sir George


Hinds, John
Rankin, Captain James Stuart



Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hood, Joseph
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
McCurdy.


Jephcott, A. R.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Betterton, Henry B.
Lunn, William
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mosley, Oswald
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Wood, Major M. M (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
O'Grady, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Holmes, J. Stanley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Mr. Lawson and Mr. C. Edwards.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Royce, William Stapleton



Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with:

Leave out the words
notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one—
and insert
before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, a draft scheme appearing to the Minister to be complete has been submitted to him, and application has before that date been made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the principal Act."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment of Part II of First Schedule to 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 30.)

Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act as amended by the Second Schedule
to the Act of 1921, shall have effect as though they were inserted at the end of paragraph (d) thereof the following words: "and provided further that in the case of employment under a local or other public authority relative to the superannuation of persons in that employment, the Minister may, if any enactment provides for the aggregation of service in that employment under two or more employers, whether the service has been continuous or not, treat such service for the purposes of the foregoing provision as if it had been service in the same employment."

Lords Amendment:

After the word "inserted" ["as though they were inserted"], insert
therein after paragraph (c) the following new paragraph—
'(cc) employment otherwise than in a temporary capacity as a member of any police force to which the Police Act, 1919, applies;'
and as though they were inserted therein."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is made in pursuance of a pledge I gave. Part II of the First Schedule of the main Act excepts certain employments by the Schedule itself and certain others at the discretion of the Minister. Permanent police are in the second category at the present time. They can be excepted by the Minister, but my hon. Friends thought, and I think they were right, that the police should be placed in the first category.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of the Clause to insert the words, "and paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d) of the said Part II is hereby repealed."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential on the last Amendment.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 14, insert a new Clause—

CLAUSE 15.—(Application of Act to Ireland, 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 67.)

For the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act
shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The present Unemployment Insurance Acts apply to Ireland, having been passed before the appointed day, which is set out under Section 73 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The Irish Parliament may amend or repeal them as they think necessary. The present Bill will become law after the appointed day, and unless this provision is made the Irish Parliaments will not have the power as regards this Bill that they have in regard to the main measure and other measures. Therefore this is practically a drafting Amendment, in which I concur.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.